Chapter I.

The writings of Origen, Vol. 2 of 2

ANTE-NICENE

CHRISTIAN LIBRARY:

TRANSLATIONS OF

THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS

DOWN TO A.D. 325.

EDITED BY THE

REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D.,

AND

JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D.

VOL. XXIII.

ORIGEN CONTRA CELSUM.

EDINBURGH:

T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.

MDCCCLXXII.

PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,

FOR

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.

LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.

DUBLIN, JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.

NEW YORK, C. SCRIBNER AND CO.

THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN.

TRANSLATED BY THE

REV. FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ST. MARY’S COLLEGE, ST. ANDREWS.

VOLUME II.

ORIGEN CONTRA CELSUM,

BOOKS II.-VIII.

EDINBURGH:

T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.

MDCCCLXXII.

Books VII. and VIII. have been translated by the late W. H. CAIRNS,

M.A., Rector of the Dumfries Academy, and the rest by PROFESSOR CROMBIE.

ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS.

VOLUME I.

BOOK I., 393-478

PREFACE.—Origen undertakes this treatise at the desire of Ambrose, but

thinks it unnecessary, as the facts and doctrines of Christianity form

its best defence—work begun on one plan and carried on on another.

First objection of Celsus is, that Christians enter into secret

associations, some of which are illegal,—his object being to discredit

the “love-feasts” of the Christians: Answer of Origen—chap. i. Second

objection of Celsus, that Judaism, on which Christianity depends, had a

barbarous origin: Answer—chap. ii. Celsus objects that Christians

practise their doctrines in secret to avoid the penalty of death:

Answer—chap. iii. Morality of Christianity neither venerable nor new:

Answer—chap. iv. Celsus approves of the views of Christians respecting

idolatry, but asserts that these views are prior to Christianity:

Answer—chap. v. Asserts that the miracles of Christianity were performed

by means of the invocation of demons: Answer—chap. vi. That Christianity

is a secret system of belief: Answer—chap. vii. Maintains that a man

should die for his belief; inconsistency of this with his profession as

an Epicurean—chap. viii. Maintains that reason ought to be the guide of

men in adopting opinions, and charges Christians with inculcating a

blind belief: Answer—chaps. ix.-xi. Boast of Celsus, that he is

acquainted with all the opinions of the Christians, shown to be

unfounded—chap. xii. Misrepresentation by Celsus of the statement in 1

Cor. iii. 18, 19: Correction and explanation—chap. xiii. Inconsistency

of Celsus in accepting the accounts of Greeks and barbarians as to their

antiquity, while rejecting the histories of the Jews—chaps. xiv.-xvi.

Celsus objects to giving an allegorical signification to the Jewish

history; inconsistency of this—chap. xvii. Challenges a comparison

between the writings of Linus, Musæus, etc., and the laws of Moses:

Answer—chap. xviii. Celsus holds that the world was uncreated, and yet

is led to admit that it is comparatively modern—chaps. xix., xx. Celsus

asserts that Moses borrowed his doctrines from wise nations and eloquent

men, and thus obtained the reputation of divinity: Answer—chap. xxi.

Circumcision, according to Celsus, first practised by the Egyptians:

Answer—chap. xxii. The followers of Moses, shepherds and herdsmen, were

led to believe in the unity of God through delusion and vulgar conceit:

Answer—chap. xxiii. Various names given to the one God by the followers

of Moses, all evincing their ignorance of His nature: Discussion

regarding the significance of the divine names in various

languages—chaps. xxiv., xxv. Celsus charges the Jews with worshipping

angels and practising sorcery: Answer—chaps. xxvi., xxvii. Inconsistency

of Celsus in introducing a Jew, as an opponent of Jesus, who does not

maintain the character of a Jew throughout the discussion: This Jew

represented as accusing Jesus of having “invented his birth from a

virgin,” and upbraiding Him with “being born in a certain Jewish village

of a poor woman of the country who gained her subsistence by spinning,

and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade,

because she was convicted of adultery; and after being driven away by

her husband and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth

to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who, having hired himself out as a

servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired

some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves,

returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by

help of them proclaimed himself a god”—chap. xxviii. Preliminary remarks

to a full answer to these charges—chaps. xxix.-xxxii. Proof that the

birth of Christ from a virgin was predicted by the prophets—chaps.

xxxiii.-xxxv. Proof that prophets existed among the Jews—chap. xxxvi.

Possibility of the miraculous birth of Christ—chap. xxxvii. Answer to

the assertion that Jesus wrought His miracles by magic, and not by

divine power—chap. xxxviii. Scoffs of Celsus regarding the mother of

Jesus not deserving of answer—chap. xxxix. Celsus charges the narrative

in Matthew regarding the dove which alighted upon the Saviour at His

baptism with being fictitious; shows great want of method and order in

the manner in which he brings his charges—chap. xl. Answer—chaps.

xli.-xlviii. Celsus sets aside the fact that the coming of Jesus was

predicted by the Jewish prophets, perhaps because he was not acquainted

with the prophecies relating to Christ: Inconsistency of representing

the Jew as saying, “My prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the Son

of God will come as the judge of the righteous and the punisher of the

wicked”—chaps. xlix., l. Detailed evidence from prophecy respecting the

birth of Christ—chaps. li.-liii. Answer to objection of Celsus regarding

the sufferings of Christ—chaps. liv.-lvi. Celsus asserts that every man,

born according to the decree of divine Providence, is a son of God:

Answer—chap. lvii. The Jew of Celsus goes on to misrepresent the Gospel

account of the visit of the Magi, and of the slaughter of the innocents

by Herod: Answer—chaps. lviii.-lxi. Calumnies of Celsus regarding the

number and character and conduct of the disciples of Jesus:

Answer—chaps. lxii.-lxv. The absurdity of the story of our Lord’s

removal when an infant, is, according to Celsus, a proof that He was not

divine: Answer—chap. lxvi. Celsus denies that the works of Jesus were at

all remarkable as compared with those attributed to Perseus and Amphion,

and other mythological personages, but admits afterwards that some of

them were remarkable,—such as His cures, and His resurrection, and the

feeding of the multitude,—although he immediately afterwards compares

them to the tricks of jugglers, and denies that they can furnish any

proof of His being “Son of God:” Answer—chaps. lxvii., lxviii. Objection

of Celsus that the body of Jesus could not have been that of a god, nor

could be nourished with such food as Jesus partook of: Answer—chaps.

lxix., lxx. Declares that opinions of Jesus were those of a wicked and

God-hated sorcerer: Answer—chap. lxxi.

VOLUME II.

BOOK II., 1 -84

This book contains Origen’s answers to the charges which Celsus, in the

person of a Jew, brings against the converts from Judaism to

Christianity. Main charge is, that “they have forsaken the law of their

fathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus; that

they have been most ridiculously deceived; and that they have become

deserters to another name and to another mode of life.” Answer to these

charges—chap. i. Digression upon certain declarations of Jesus in the

Gospels—chap. ii. Ignorance of Celsus evinced by the manner in which he

represents the Jew as addressing the Israelitish converts—chap. iii.

Objection of Jew, that Christianity takes its origin from Judaism, and

that after a certain point it discards Judaism: Answer—chap. iv.

Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus was punished by the Jews for His crimes,

already answered—chap. v. Observance by Jesus of Jewish usages and

sacrificial observances, no argument against His recognition as the Son

of God—chap. vi. Language of Jesus furnishes not the slightest evidence,

but the reverse, of arrogance: Quotations—chap. vii. Allegation, that

when men are willing to be deceived, many persons like Jesus would find

a friendly reception; inconsistency of this; various other charges

disposed of—chap. viii. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus could not be

deemed a god because he was currently reported to have performed none of

his promises, and, after conviction and sentence, was found attempting

to conceal himself and endeavouring to escape, and was then betrayed by

his disciples; impossibility of such things, according to Celsus,

happening to a god: Answer to these calumnies and objections—chaps.

ix.-xi. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus was inferior to a brigand chief,

because He was betrayed by His disciples: Answer—chap. xii. Celsus

asserts that he omits mention of many things in the life of Christ which

he could state to His disadvantage; challenged to produce such: Several

predictions of Jesus quoted and commented on—chap. xiii. Celsus makes

light of the admission that future events were predicted by Jesus:

Remarks of Origen in answer—chap. xiv. Assertion of Celsus, that the

disciples of Jesus devised the fiction that He foreknew everything

before it happened: Answer—chap. xv. Asserts that the disciples wrote

the accounts they have given by way of extenuating the charges against

Him: Answer—chap. xvi. Celsus alleges that a prudent man—much more a god

or spirit—would have tried to escape dangers that were foreseen, whereas

Jesus did the reverse: Answer—chap. xvii. Objection of Celsus, that the

announcements which Jesus made regarding those disciples who were to

betray and deny Him had not the effect of deterring them from their

treason and perjury, shown to be self-contradictory—chap. xviii. Further

statement of Celsus, that in such cases intending criminals abandon

their intentions, shown to be untrue—chap. xix. Objection, that if Jesus

had been a God, His predictions must infallibly have come to pass; and

assertion, that He plotted against the members of His own table:

Refuted—chaps. xx.-xxii. Assertion, that the things which He suffered

could have been neither painful nor distressing, because He submitted to

them voluntarily and as a God—chap. xxiii. Misrepresentation of Celsus

as to the language employed by Jesus during His sufferings—chaps. xxiv.,

xxv. Celsus charges the disciples with having invented statements:

Answer—chap. xxvi. Alleges that Christian believers have corrupted the

gospel in order to be able to reply to objections: Answer—chap. xxvii.

The Jew of Celsus reproaches Christians with making use of the prophets:

Answer—chap. xxviii. Assertion of Celsus, that from such signs and

misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove Jesus to

be God and the Son of God: Answer—chap. xxx. Charges Christians with

sophistical reasoning in saying that the Son of God is the Logos

Himself: Refutation—chap. xxxi. Objection of Celsus to our Lord’s

genealogy: Refutation—chap. xxxii. Celsus ridicules the actions of Jesus

as unworthy of a God: Refutation—chap. xxxiii. Inconsistency of Celsus

in representing the Jew as conversant with Greek literature; various

remarks of Celsus answered—chap. xxxiv. Question of Celsus, why Jesus

does not give some manifestation of His divinity by taking vengeance

upon those who insult Him and His Father: Answered—chap. xxxv. Celsus

scoffingly inquires, What was the nature of the ichor in the body of

Jesus? and asserts that Jesus rushed with open mouth to drink of the

vinegar and gall: Answer—chaps. xxxvi., xxxvii. Sneer of the Jew, that

Christians find fault with Jews for not recognising Jesus as God:

Answer—chap. xxxviii. Falsehood of the assertion of this Jew of Celsus,

that Jesus gained over to His cause no one during His life, not even His

own disciples—chap. xxxix. Jew goes on to assert that Jesus did not show

Himself to be pure from all evil: Answer—chaps. xli., xlii. Falsity of

the statement, that Jesus, after failing to gain over those who were in

this world, went to Hades to gain over those who were there—chap. xliii.

Celsus asserts further, that other individuals who have been condemned

and died miserable deaths ought to be regarded as greater and more

divine messengers of heaven than Jesus: Answer—chap. xliv. Argument of

Celsus against the truth of Christianity, from the different behaviour

of the actual followers of Jesus during His life and that of Christians

at the present day: Answer—chap. xlv. Falsehood of the assertion, that

Jesus when on earth gained over to Himself only sailors and

tax-gatherers of the most worthless character—chap. xlvi. Answer to the

question, By what train of argument were Christians led to regard Jesus

as the Son of God?—chap. xlvii. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus is

deemed by Christians to be the Son of God because He healed the lame and

the blind and is asserted to have raised the dead: Answer—chap. xlviii.

Statement of Celsus, that Jesus convicted Himself of being a sorcerer:

Refuted by His predictions regarding false prophets, etc.—chaps. xlix.,

l. No resemblance between the works of Jesus and those of a

sorcerer—chap. li. Inconsistency of the Jew in raising the objections

which he does, seeing that the same objections might be raised against

the divinity of Mosaism—chaps. lii.-liv. Jew objects further, that the

predictions, although actually uttered, prove nothing, because many have

been deceived by juggling tricks; asserts also, that there is no

satisfactory evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, the report of which

can be explained in other ways: Answer—chaps. lv.-lxii. Celsus proceeds

to bring, as a serious charge against Jesus, that He did not appear

after His resurrection to those who had ill-treated Him and condemned

Him, and to men in general: Answer—chaps. lxiii.-lxvii. Celsus asserts,

that it would have helped to manifest His divinity if He had at once

disappeared from the cross: Answer—chaps. lxviii., lxix. Inconsistency

of Celsus’ statement (that Jesus concealed Himself) with the facts of

the case, pointed out—chap. lxx. Certain declarations of Jesus regarding

Himself, noticed—chap. lxxi. Celsus asks why, if Jesus wished to remain

hid, a voice was heard from heaven proclaiming Him to be the Son of God?

or, if He did not seek concealment, why was He punished? or, why did He

die? Answer—chap. lxxii. Celsus asserts, that no witness is needed to

refute the statements of the Christians, because these are taken from

their own books, which are self-contradictory: Answer—chap. lxxiv.

Impossibility, according to Celsus, that a god, who was expected to

appear among men, should be received with incredulity on his coming, or

should fail to be recognised by those who have been looking for him:

Answer—chap. lxxv. All objections brought by the Jew against

Christianity might be retorted on himself: Illustrations—chap. lxxvi.

Jew professes his belief in a bodily resurrection and in eternal

life—chap. lxxvii. Asks if Jesus came into the world to produce unbelief

in the minds of men: Answer—chap. lxxviii. Conclusion of the Jew is that

everything proves Jesus to have been a man: General refutation.

BOOK III., 85-160

Object of Book Third to refute the charges which Celsus makes against

Christianity in his own person. Assertion of Celsus that the controversy

between Jews and Christians is most foolish; that there is nothing of

importance in the investigations of Jews and Christians; because,

although both believe that a Saviour was predicted, yet they do not

agree on the point whether He has actually come or not. Refutation of

these statements generally—chaps. i.-iv. Celsus alleges that both

Judaism and Christianity originated in rebellion against the State;

impossibility of this—chaps. v.-vii. Jews shown from their language not

to be Egyptians—chap. viii. Falsehood of the assertion that Christians

do not desire to convert all men, even if they could—chap. ix. Proof of

Celsus in support of his assertion: Answer—chaps. x.-xiii. Union of

Christians alleged to rest upon no substantial reason, save on rebellion

and fear of external enemies: Answer—chaps. xiv., xv. Falsity of the

charge that Christians invent terrors—chap. xvi. Comparison of the

articles of the Christian faith to Egyptian temples, where, after

passing through imposing avenues, nothing is found as an object of

worship save a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog:

Refutation of this—chaps. xvii.-xxi. Celsus asserts that the Dioscuri,

and Hercules, and Æsculapius, and Dionysus, are believed by the Greeks

to have become gods after being men; but that we refuse to recognise

them as such, although they manifested many noble qualities, displayed

for the benefit of mankind: General answer—chap. xxii. Comparison of our

Lord’s character with that of individuals referred to—chap. xxiii.

Unfairness of Celsus in requiring Christians to believe the stories

regarding such beings, and yet refusing his assent to the credibility of

the Gospel narratives regarding Jesus—chap. xxiv. Examination of the

case of Æsculapius—chaps. xxv., xxvi.; of Aristeas of Proconnesus—chaps.

xxvi.-xxix. Superiority of the churches of God over the public

assemblies—chaps. xxix., xxx. Comparison of the cases of Abaris the

Hyperborean and of the Clazomenian with Jesus—chaps. xxxi., xxxii.

Examination of the story of Cleomedes of Astypalea—chap. xxxiii. Celsus

alleges that there are many other similar instances: This statement,

even if true, shown to be inapplicable—chap. xxxiv. Celsus challenged to

say whether he believes such beings really to be demons, or heroes, or

gods: Consequences which will follow—chap. xxxv. Comparison of case of

Antinous, the favourite of Hadrian, shown to be absurd—chaps.

xxxvi.-xxxviii. Allegation of Celsus that faith alone leads Christians

to give their assent to the doctrines of Jesus: Examination of this

statement—chaps. xxxix.-xli. Comparison of mortal flesh of Jesus to

gold, silver, or stone, shown to be inept—chap. xlii. Celsus asserts,

that in ridiculing the worshippers of Jupiter, who was buried in Crete,

while worshipping Jesus, who rose from the grave, we are guilty of

inconsistency: Answer—chap. xliii. Various objections against

Christianity, gathered from the more unintelligent Christians, adduced

by Celsus; enumeration of these: Answers—chaps. xliv., xlv. Christians

do desire that there should be wise men among them—chaps. xlv.-xlviii.

Allegation that only the low, and the vile, and the ignorant, with women

and children, are desired as converts, shown to be false in the sense in

which it is advanced by Celsus—chaps. xlix.-liv. Charge brought against

teachers of Christianity of surreptitiously inculcating their doctrines

upon children without the knowledge of their parents—chap. lv.

Examination of this charge—chaps. lvi.-lviii. Answer to charge of

Celsus, that Christians invite the wicked alone to participation in

their sacred rites—chaps. lix.-lxii. Refutation of the charge that God

does not decide in accordance with truth, but with flattery—chap. lxiii.

Answer to question of Celsus, why sinners are preferred over

others—chap. lxiv. Falsehood of the assertion that Christians are able

to gain over none but sinners—chap. lxv. Error of Celsus in denying the

possibility of a complete transformation of character—chap. lxvi. His

meaning probably was, that such transformation could not be effected by

punishment; this shown to be false—chap. lxvii. Transformation of

character, in certain cases, by means of philosophical discourses, not a

matter to excite surprise: character of Christian preaching—chap.

lxviii. Examination of Celsus’ statement, that to change a nature

entirely is exceedingly difficult—chap. lxix. God can do all that it is

possible for Him to do without ceasing to be God—chap. lxx. Falsity of

statement that God alleviates the sufferings of the wicked through pity

for their wailings, but casts off the good—chap. lxxi. No truly wise man

could be misled by any statements of an unintelligent Christian—chap.

lxxii. Falsity of statements, that the ambassador of Christianity

relates only ridiculous things—chap. lxxiii. That he seeks after the

unintelligent alone—chap. lxxiv. That he acts like a person who promises

to restore patients to bodily health, but who prevents them from

consulting skilled physicians, who would expose his ignorance—chap.

lxxv. That the Christian teacher acts like a drunken man, who should

enter a company of drunkards, and accuse those who were sober of being

drunk—chap. lxxvi. That he is like one suffering from ophthalmia, who

should accuse the clear-sighted of blindness. Assertion of Celsus that

Christians lead on men by empty hopes: Answer—chap. lxxvii. Character of

those who become converts—chap. lxxviii. Christianity the best system

which men were capable of receiving—chaps. lxxix.-lxxxi.

BOOK IV., 161-267

Subject of Fourth Book mainly to show that the prophecies regarding

Christ are true predictions—chap. i. The position maintained by certain

Christians, that there has already descended upon the earth a certain

God, or Son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of the earth

righteous, and by the Jews, that the advent of this being is still

future, asserted by Celsus to be false: Answer—chap. ii. Question of

Celsus as to the meaning of such a descent: Answered—chap. iii. Argument

of Celsus turned against himself—chap. iv. Celsus misrepresents

Christians as saying that God Himself will come down to men, and that it

follows that He has left His own abode—chap. v. Celsus represents the

object of God’s descent to be a desire to make Himself known, and to

make trial of men; and this, he alleges, testifies to an excessive and

mortal ambition on the part of God: Answer—chaps. vi.-ix. Celsus

asserts, that Christians talk of God in a way that is neither holy nor

reverential, and likens them to those who in the Bacchic mysteries

introduce phantoms and objects of terror: Answer—chap. x. Celsus

endeavours to prove that the statements in the Christian records

regarding floods and conflagrations are neither new nor wonderful, but

may be paralleled and explained from the accounts of the Greeks:

Answer—chaps. xi.-xiii. Celsus returns to the subject of the descent of

God, alleging that if He came down among men, He must have undergone a

change from better to worse, which is impossible in the case of an

immortal being: Answer—chaps. xiv.-xvi. Superiority of the scriptural

accounts of these matters over those of the Greek mythology—chap. xvii.

Celsus repeats his objections: Answer—chaps. xviii., xix. Celsus’

representation of the manner in which the Jews maintain that the advent

of Jesus is still future—chap. xx. Absurdity of the statement of Celsus

that the overturning of the tower of Babel had the same object as the

Deluge, viz. the purification of the earth—chap. xxi. Proof that Jews

brought on themselves the divine wrath, because of their treatment of

Jesus—chap. xxii. Celsus insolently compares Jews and Christians to

bats, and ants, and frogs, and worms, etc.—chap. xxiii. Answer—chaps.

xxiv., xxv. Superiority of Christians in their opinions and practice to

idolaters—chaps. xxvi., xxvii. Celsus misrepresents the language of

Christians as to God’s descent among men, and His intercourse with

them—chaps. xxviii., xxix. Celsus, not understanding the words, “Let us

make man in our image and likeness,” has represented Christians as

saying that they _resemble_ God because created by Him: Answer—chap.

xxx. Celsus again asserts that the Jews were fugitives from Egypt, who

never performed anything of note, and were never held in any account:

Answer—chaps. xxxi., xxxii. Celsus, in very ambiguous language, asserts

that the Jews endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of

jugglers and deceivers, and appealed to the testimony of dark and

ambiguous words: Answer—chaps. xxxiii.-xxxv. Celsus adduces instances of

alleged great antiquity put forth by other nations, and asserts that the

Jews wove together some most incredible and stupid stories, regarding

the creation of man, the formation of the woman, the issuing of certain

commands by God, the opposition of the serpent, and the defeat of God,

who is thus shown to have been weak at the very beginning of things, and

unable to persuade a single individual to obey His will: Detailed

answers to these misrepresentations—chaps. xxxvi.-xl. Celsus next

ridicules the accounts of the Deluge and the Ark: Answers—chaps. xli.,

xlii. Goes on to carp at the histories of Abraham and Sarah, of Cain and

Abel, of Esau and Jacob, of Laban and Jacob—chap. xliii. Explanation of

the statement that “God gave wells to the righteous;” other matters,

also, to be allegorically understood—chap. xliv. Celsus does not

recognise the love of truth which characterizes the writers of

Scripture; figurative signification of Sodom, and of Lot and his

daughters; discussion on the nature of actions—chap. xlv. Spirit of

hostility which characterizes Celsus, in selecting from the narratives

of Scripture whatever may serve as ground of accusation against

Christians, while passing without notice whatever may redound to their

credit: Instances—chap. xlvi. Celsus refers vaguely to the dreams of the

butler and baker in the history of Joseph, and endeavours to find ground

of objection in the history of Joseph’s conduct towards his

brethren—chap. xlvii. Asserts that the more modest among Jews and

Christians endeavour to give these things an allegorical meaning,

because they are ashamed of them: Answer—chap. xlviii. Falsity of his

assertion that the scriptural writings are incapable of receiving an

allegorical meaning—chaps. xlix., l. The treatises which give

allegorical explanations of the law of Moses evidently unknown to

Celsus, otherwise he could not have said that these allegorical

explanations were more shameful than the fables themselves:

Illustrations—chap. li. Celsus refers to the work entitled “Controversy

between Papiscus and Jason,” in support of his assertions—chaps. lii.,

liii. Celsus conceals his real opinions, although he ought to have

avowed them, when quoting from the _Timæus_ of Plato, to the effect that

God made immortal things alone, while mortal things are the work of

others; that the soul is the work of God, while the body is different;

that there is no difference between the body of a man, and that of a

bat: Examination of these statements—chaps. liv.-lix. Asserts that a

common nature pervades all bodies, and that no product of matter is

immortal: Answers—chaps. lx., lxi. Maintains that the amount of evil is

a fixed quantity, which has never varied: Answers—chaps. lxii.-lxiv.

That it is difficult for any but a philosopher to ascertain the origin

of evils, but that it is sufficient for the multitude to say that they

do not proceed from God, but cleave to matter; and that, as the cause of

mortal events never varies, the same things must always return,

according to the appointed cycles: Answers—chaps. lxv.-lxix. Assertion

of Celsus that a thing which seems to be evil may not necessarily be so:

Examined—chap. lxx. Celsus misunderstands the anthropopathic language of

Scripture: Explanation—chaps. lxxi.-lxxiii. Celsus finds fault with

Christians for asserting that God made all things for the sake of man,

whereas they were made as much for the sake of the irrational animals:

Answer—chap. lxxiv. Celsus holds that thunders, and lightnings, and

rains are not the works of God; that even if they were, they were

brought into existence as much for the sake of plants, and trees, and

herbs, as for that of human beings: Answer—chaps. lxxv., lxxvi. Celsus

maintains that the verse of Euripides, viz. “The sun and night are to

mortals slaves,” is untrue, as these luminaries may be said to be

created for the use of ants and flies as much as of man: Answer—chap.

lxxvii. Asserts that we may be said to be created as much on account of

irrational animals as they on our account: Answer—chaps. lxxviii.-lxxx.

Celsus maintains that the superiority of man over irrational animals in

building cities and founding political communities is only apparent:

Examination of this assertion—chaps. lxxxi.-lxxxiv. No great difference,

according to Celsus, between the actions of men, and those of ants and

bees—chap. lxxxv. Certain irrational animals, according to Celsus,

possess the power of sorcery; instances: Examination of these—chaps.

lxxxvi., lxxxvii. Assertion that the thoughts entertained of God by

irrational animals are not inferior to those of men; illustrations:

Answer—chaps. lxxxviii., lxxxix. Degrading views of Celsus—chaps.

xc.-xcix.

BOOK V., 268-335

Continuation of the subject—chap. i. Celsus repeats his denial that no

God, or son of God, has either come, or will come, to earth; that if

certain angels did come, by what name are they to be called? whether by

that of gods or some other race of beings? in all probability such

angels were demons: Refutation—chaps. ii.-v. Celsus proceeds to express

surprise that the Jews should worship heaven and angels, and yet pass by

the heavenly bodies, as the sun and moon; which procedure is, according

to his view, most unreasonable: Refutation—chaps. vi.-x. Defence of

Christians against the same charge—chaps. x.-xiii. Celsus declares the

Christian belief in the future conflagration of the world, in the

salvation of the righteous, in the resurrection of the body, most

foolish and irrational, alleging that this belief is not held by some of

the Christian believers, and adducing certain considerations regarding

the character of God and the nature of bodies which render such things

impossible—chap. xiv. Refutation in detail of these objections—chaps.

xv.-xxiv. Examination of Celsus’ statement that the various quarters of

the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending

spirits, and that in this way the administration of the world is carried

on—chaps. xxv.-xxviii. Considerations of a profounder kind may be stated

regarding the original distribution of the various quarters of the earth

among different superintending spirits, which considerations may be

shown to be free from the absurd consequences which would follow from

the views of Celsus; enumeration of these—chaps. xxix.-xxxiii. Statement

of Celsus regarding the request of the people of Marea and Apis to the

oracle of Ammon, as related by Herodotus, and the inference which he

seems to draw from it and other similar instances adduced by him,

examined and refuted—chaps. xxxiv.-xxxix. Examination of Celsus’

quotation from Pindar, that “Law is king of all things”—chap. xl. Celsus

goes on to state objections which apply to Jews much more than to

Christians, viz. that the Jewish doctrine regarding heaven is not

peculiar to them, but has long ago been received by the Persians; and

proceeds to observe that it makes no difference by what name the Supreme

Being is called; nor are the Jews to be deemed holier than other nations

because abstaining from swine’s flesh, etc. Detailed examination and

refutation of these statements—chaps. xli.-xlix. Celsus denies that the

Jews were regarded by God with greater favour than other nations:

Answer—chap. l. Statement of Celsus that, admitting Jesus to have been

an angel, He was not the first who came to visit men, for the histories

relate that there have been many instances, several of which he

enumerates—chap. lii. Refutation—chaps. liii.-lviii. Conclusion of

Celsus that Jews and Christians have the same God, and that the latter

adopt the Jewish accounts regarding the six days; other points of

agreement mentioned: examination of these statements, as well as of his

admission that certain Christians will admit the identity, while others

will deny it—chaps. lix.-lxii. Argument of Celsus against Christianity,

founded upon the existence of those who have worshipped demons as their

teacher, and of sects that have hated each other, examined and

refuted—chap. lxiii. Celsus has misunderstood the prediction of the

apostle that deceivers will come in the last times—chap. lxiv. Falsity

of Celsus’ statement that all who differ so widely may be heard saying,

“The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world”—chap. lxv.

BOOK VI., 336-424

Object of Sixth Book specially to refute those objections which _Celsus_

brings against Christians, and not those derived from writers on

philosophy—chap. i. Explanation of the reasons which led the writers of

Scripture to adopt a simple style of address—chap. ii. Quotation from

Plato regarding the “chief good,” and remarks upon it—chap. iii.

Inconsistent conduct of those who can so express themselves pointed

out—chap. iv. Comparison of the Platonic phraseology, regarding the

kindling of a light in the soul, with the language of Scripture—chap. v.

Examination of the question whether Plato was acquainted with doctrines

more profound than those which are contained in his writings, and

demonstration of the fact that the prophets did know of greater things

than any in Scripture, but did not commit them to writing—chaps. vi.-x.

Celsus inquires whether, amid the perplexity arising from the existence

of different Christs, men are to cast the dice to divine which of them

they ought to follow? Answer—chap. xi. Perversion of the language of

Paul regarding wisdom corrected—chaps. xii., xiii. Examination of

Celsus’ charge that Christians are uninstructed, servile, and

ignorant—chap. xiv. Sneer of Celsus at the humility of Christians

answered—chap. xv. Celsus charges Jesus with having perverted the

language of Plato in His saying regarding the impossibility of a rich

man’s entering the kingdom of heaven: Answer—chap. xvi. Comparison of

some points of Scripture doctrine with statements of Plato—chaps. xvii.,

xviii. Charge of Celsus that Christians have misunderstood language of

Plato, in boasting of a “super-celestial” God: Answer—chap. xix.

Explanation of certain terms referring to heaven—chaps. xx., xxi.

Assertion of Celsus, that the Persian mysteries of Mithras contain many

obscure allusions to those heavenly things mentioned in the Christian

writings; absurdity of his statements—chaps. xxii., xxiii. Celsus refers

to a certain diagram, the statements regarding which he appears to have

borrowed from the sect of the Ophites; which statements, however, are of

no credibility—chap. xxiv. Description of said diagram, and explanation

of the names inscribed in it—chaps. xxv., xxvi. Certain statements of

Celsus regarding the “seal” examined—chap. xxvii. Celsus asserts that

Christians term the Creator an “accursed” divinity, and asks what could

be more foolish or insane than such senseless wisdom? Examination of

these statements—chaps. xxviii., xxix. Celsus returns to the subject of

the seven ruling demons, and makes reference to the diagram—chap. xxx.

Quotations illustrating the manner of invoking said demons—chap. xxxi.

Remarks on the procedure of Celsus—chap. xxxii. Further statements of

Celsus—chap. xxxiii. Continuation of statements of Celsus, to the effect

that Christians heap together one thing after another,—discourses of

prophets, circles upon circles, effluents from an earthly church, and

from circumcision; and a power flowing from one Prunicos, a virgin and

living soul; and a heaven slain in order to live, etc. etc.—chap. xxxiv.

Detailed examination and answer to these statements—chaps. xxxv.-xxxvii.

Celsus introduces other charges, stating that there are inscriptions in

the diagram containing two words, “a greater and a less,” which are

referred to Father and Son: Answer—chap. xxxviii. Statement of Celsus,

that names of demons among the Greeks are different from what they are

among the Scythians; gives illustrations: Answer—chap. xxxix. Statement

of Celsus, on the authority of Dionysius, an Egyptian magician, that

magic arts have no power over philosophers, but only over uneducated men

and persons of corrupt morals: Falsity of this shown—chap. xli.

Allegation of Celsus, that Christians have invented the fiction of the

devil or Satan, as an adversary to God, who counterworks His plans and

defeats them; that the Son of God, even, has been vanquished by the

devil; and that the devil will exhibit great and marvellous works, and

claim for himself the glory of God: Examination and refutation of these

statements—chaps. xlii.-xliv. Celsus has misunderstood the statements of

Scripture regarding Antichrist: Explanation of these—chaps. xlv., xlvi.

Celsus perverts the language of Christians regarding the “Son of God:”

Answer—chap. xlvii. Mystical meaning of “Son of God” explained—chap.

xlviii. Celsus characterizes the Mosaic cosmogony as extremely silly,

and alleges that Moses and the prophets, from ignorance, have woven

together a web of sheer nonsense: Answers—chaps. xlix.-li. Celsus will

not decide whether the world was uncreated and indestructible, or

created but not destructible—chap. lii. Brings forward objections that

were raised against Marcion, and after several disparaging observations

on the manner of the divine procedure towards men, asks how it is that

God created evil, etc.—chap. liii. Answer to the foregoing—chaps.

liv.-lix. Celsus repeats charges formerly made regarding the days of

creation—chaps. lx., lxi. Comments on the expression, “The mouth of the

Lord hath spoken it:” Answer—chap. lxii. Asserts that “the first-born of

every creature” is the image of God, and that God did not make man in

His image, because he is unlike to any other species of being;

explanation of the expression, “Man is made after the image of

God”—chap. lxiii. God partakes neither of form nor colour, nor can

motion be predicated of Him; explanation of passages that seem to imply

the reverse—chap. lxiv. Inconsistency of Celsus with his declared

opinions, in saying that God is the source of all things; asserts that

He cannot be reached by word: Explanation and distinction—chap. lxv.

Celsus asks, in the person of another, how it is possible to know God,

or to learn the way that leads to Him, because darkness is thrown before

the eyes, and nothing distinctly seen: Answer to this query, and remark

of Celsus retorted upon himself—chaps. lxvi.-lxviii. Celsus represents

our answer as being this: “Since God is great and difficult to see, He

put His own Spirit into a body that resembled ours, and sent it down to

us, that we might be enabled to hear Him, and become acquainted with

Him:” Examination of this statement—chaps. lxix., lxx. According to

Celsus, our doctrine regarding the spirit is the same as that of the

Stoics, who maintain that “God is a spirit, diffused through all things,

and containing all things within Himself:” Answer—chap. lxxi. Assertion

that the Son of God would not be immortal, because He was a spirit

existing in a human body: Answer—chap. lxxii. Criticises, in scoffing

language, the incarnation; exposure of his errors—chap. lxxiii. Returns

to the subject of Marcion’s opinions; introduces “two sons of God,” and

speaks scoffingly of the supposed controversies between them—chap.

lxxiv. Maintains that the body of Jesus must have been different from

that of other beings, in virtue of His divine qualities. Consideration

of the prophecies regarding Jesus: Answers to his statements—chaps.

lxxv.-lxxvii. Celsus ridicules the sending of God’s Spirit into _one_

corner of the world alone, and compares God to Jupiter in the comedy,

who sent Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedemonians: Answer—chaps.

lxxviii., lxxix. Celsus terms the Chaldeans a divinely-inspired nation;

speaks of the Egyptian people as also inspired, although he condemned

them formerly, and refuses this title to the Jews; inconsistency of all

this—chap. lxxx. Pretends not to understand how God could send His Son

amongst wicked men, who were to inflict punishment upon Him:

Answer—chap. lxxxi.

BOOK VII., 425-491

Celsus denies that the Jewish prophets predicted any of the events which

occurred in the life of Christ, and asserts that those who believe in

the existence of another God, besides that of the Jews, cannot refute

his objections; while Christians, who recognise the God of the Jews,

rely for their defence on the alleged predictions regarding Christ:

Remarks—chap. ii. Celsus declares Christians inconsistent in rejecting

the ancient Grecian oracles of Delphi, Dodona, Clarus, Branchidæ,

Jupiter Ammon, etc., which nevertheless were of high importance, while

insisting that the sayings uttered in Judea are marvellous and

unchangeably true: Detailed answer to this objection—chaps. iii.-viii.

Asserts that many individuals assume the attitude of inspiration, and

claim to be God, or the Son of God, or the divine Spirit, and to have

come down to save a perishing world, and promise rewards to those who do

them homage, and threaten vengeance upon others; and, moreover, to these

promises add strange and unintelligible words, which may be applied by

any impostor to his own purposes—chap. ix. Answer to these

charges—chaps. x.-xii. Falsity of Celsus’ statement that God favours the

commission of evil—chap. xiii. Celsus objects, that even if the prophets

foretold that the great God would become a slave, or die, there was no

necessity that He should do so simply because such things had been

predicted: Answers—chaps. xiv.-xvii. Celsus objects further, that if the

prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that Jesus was to be the Son of

the same God, how could commands have been given through Moses that the

Jews should accumulate wealth, extend their dominion, fill the earth,

put their enemies to the sword, under threat of being treated by God as

His enemies; whilst the man of Nazareth, His Son, delivered commands of

a totally opposite kind? Errors of Celsus pointed out in detail, and the

nature of the two dispensations explained—chaps. xviii.-xxvi. Falsity of

assertion that Christians believe the Divine Being to be corporeal in

His nature, and to possess a body like a man—chap. xxvii. Celsus alleges

that the idea of a better land than this, to which Christians hope to go

after death, has been borrowed from the divine men of a former age, and

quotes from Homer and Plato in support of his assertion: Answers—chaps.

xxviii.-xxxi. Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, and

asserts that we uphold this doctrine in order that we may see and know

God: Answer—chaps. xxxii.-xxxiv. The oracles of Trophonius, etc., to

which Celsus would direct Christians, assuring them that there they

would see God distinctly, shown to be demons—chap. xxxv. Language of

Christians as to the manner in which they see God misrepresented by

Celsus—chaps. xxxvi.-xxxix. Language of Celsus quite inappropriate as

addressed to Christians, and applicable only to those whose doctrines

differ widely from theirs—chap. xl. Celsus recommends Christians to

follow the guidance of divinely inspired poets, wise men, and

philosophers, without mentioning their names: Remarks on this—chap. xli.

Proceeds to name Plato as an effective teacher of theological truth,

quoting from the _Timæus_ to the effect that it is a hard matter to find

out the Maker and Father of the universe, and an impossibility to make

Him known to all after having found Him; and remarking that Christians

cannot follow the example of Plato and others, who proceed by analysis

and synthesis, because they are wedded to the flesh: Answers—chaps.

xlii.-xlv. General remarks upon the tone in which Christians carry on

controversy with their opponents—chap. xlvi. Actions of those who,

although seeming to be wise, did not yield themselves to the divine

teaching—chap. xlvii. Purity of life exhibited by Christians—chap.

xlviii. Even by those who are unable to investigate the deeper questions

of theology—chap. xlix. Explanation of certain scriptural expressions

regarding “birth” or “generation”—chap. l. Difference between Christians

and those who received a portion of the divine Spirit before the

dispensation of Christianity—chap. li. Celsus proceeds to say to

Christians that they would have done better to have selected as the

object of their homage some one who had died a glorious death, whose

divinity might have received the support of some myth to perpetuate his

memory, and names Hercules, Æsculapius, Anaxarchus, and Epictetus, as

instances, alleging that Jesus never uttered under suffering any words

that could be compared to their utterances—chap. liii. Answers—chaps.

liv.-lv. Sneering remark of Celsus that we might better have given the

name of Son of God to the Sibyl than to Jesus—chap. lvi. Scoffing advice

of Celsus, that we had better choose Jonah than Jesus for our God:

Answer—chap. lvii. Celsus asserts that the Christian precept, “Whosoever

shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also,” is an

ancient saying, admirably expressed long ago, and reported by Christians

in a coarser way, and quotes from Plato in support of his statement:

Answer—chaps. lviii.-lxi. Celsus goes on to say that Christians cannot

tolerate temples, altars, or images, and that in this peculiarity they

resemble Scythians and other barbarous nations, adducing quotations from

Herodotus and Heraclitus in support of his opinion that none, save those

who are utterly childish, can take these things for gods—chap. lxii.

Detailed answer—chaps. lxiii.-lxvi. Celsus remarks that Christians will

not admit that these images are erected in honour of certain beings who

are gods, but maintain that these are demons, and ought not to be

worshipped: Remarks in answer—chap. lxvii. Asks why demons are not to be

worshipped, and asserts that everything, whether the work of angels,

demons, or heroes, is part of the providential government of the Most

High God: Answers—chaps. lxviii.-lxx.

BOOK VIII., 492-559

Celsus, after his question regarding the worship of demons, proceeds to

represent us as saying that it is impossible to serve many masters, and

remarks that this is the language of sedition, and used only by those

who stand aloof from all human society, etc. Consideration of the true

language of Scripture upon this and kindred points, in answer to this

statement—chaps. ii.-viii. Reckless language of Celsus, who would have

us believe that we are led by our worship of God to that of other things

which belong to God, without injury to ourselves, and who yet adds, “We

may honour none except those to whom that right has been given by God:”

Remarks—chap. ix. Nature of the honour which Christians pay to the Son

of God—chap. x. Celsus asserts that those who uphold the unity of God

are guilty of impiety: Answer—chap. xi. That if Christians worshipped

one God alone, they would have valid arguments against the worship of

others, but they pay excessive reverence to one who is the servant of

God: Refutation—chaps. xii.-xiv. Celsus quotes from the opinions of some

obscure heretical sect, contained in what is called a _Heavenly

Dialogue_, to the effect that we suppose another God, who is above the

heavens, to be the father of Him whom we honour, in order that we may

honour the Son of Man alone; whom also we assert to be stronger than

God, who rules the world and who rules over them: Answers—chaps.

xv.-xvi. Celsus goes on to say, that our shrinking from raising altars,

statues, and temples, has been agreed upon among us as the badge of a

secret society: Answer—chaps. xvii.-xx. Assertion of Celsus, that those

devoted to the service of God may take part in public feasts or idol

offerings: Answer—chap. xxi. Answer to objection that Christians

themselves observe certain days, as the Preparation, the Passover, and

Pentecost—chaps. xxii., xxiii. Reasons urged by Celsus why Christians

may make use of idol offerings and public sacrifices at public feasts;

examination of these—chaps. xxiv.-xxvii. Celsus proceeds to state that

if Christians abstain from idol offerings, they ought, in consistency,

to abstain from all animal food, like the Pythagoreans: Answer—chaps.

xxviii.-xxxii. Celsus alleges that if we come into the world at all, we

must give thanks, and first-fruits, and prayers to demons, that they may

prove good and kind: Answer—chaps. xxxiii., xxxiv. Celsus remarks that

the satraps of a Persian or Roman monarch could do great injury to those

who despised them, and asks, will the satraps and ministers of air and

earth be insulted with impunity? Answer—chaps. xxxv., xxxvi. Asserts

that if Christians invoke those whom they address by barbarous names

they will have power, but not if invoked in Latin and Greek; falsity and

absurdity of this statement—chap. xxxvii. Misrepresents the language

addressed by Christians to the Grecian statues—chap. xxxviii. Scoffing

language of Celsus to the Christians on the rejection of Jesus, whom he

terms a demon, and on his inability to save His followers from being put

to death—chap. xxxix. Contrast between the Christian and heathen

doctrine of punishment—chap. xl. Railing address of Celsus, to the

effect that although Christians may revile the statues of the gods, they

would not have reviled the gods themselves with impunity; that nothing

happened to those who crucified Jesus; that no father was ever so

inhuman as was the father of Jesus, etc. etc.: Answers—chaps. xli.-xliv.

Celsus asserts that it is of no use to collect all the oracular

responses that have been delivered, for the world is full of them, and

many remarkable events have happened in consequence of them, which

establish their reality and divinity; general remark in answer—chap.

xlv. Contrast between conduct of Pythian priestess, who frequently

allowed herself to be bribed, and that of the prophets, who were admired

for their downright truthfulness—chap. xlvi. Assertion of Greeks, that

the Jewish history contains fabulous accounts, refuted—chap. xlvii.

Endeavour of Celsus to show that the doctrines delivered at the

celebration of the pagan mysteries are the same as those of the

Christians; absurdity of this—chap. xlviii. Celsus reproaches Christians

with inconsistency in their treatment of the body: Answer—chaps. xlix.,

l. Celsus approves the Christian doctrine that the righteous shall enjoy

everlasting life, and the wicked shall suffer everlasting punishment;

inconsistency of this on the part of Celsus—chap. li. Anxiety of Origen

to bring all men to receive the whole system of Christian truth—chap.

lii. Doubtful manner in which Celsus speaks of certain weighty matters,

and reluctance on his part to set down any of them as false;

inconsistency of this with the manner in which he treats the doctrines

of Christianity, which he regards with a hostile spirit—chaps. liii.,

liv. Celsus asserts that Christians must make their choice between two

alternatives; nature of these: Answer—chaps. lv.-lvii. Seeks to degrade

the souls of men to the worship of demons, by referring to certain

practices and beliefs prevalent among the Egyptians: Answer—chaps.

lviii.-lix. Admits that there is a dangerous tendency in demon-worship:

Remarks—chaps. lx.-lxii. Yet adds that the more just opinion is that

demons desire and need nothing, but that they take pleasure in those who

discharge towards them offices of piety: Answer—chaps. lxiii.-lxv.

Celsus admits that no worshipper of God should submit to anything base,

but should encounter any torments or death, rather than do anything

unworthy of God; and yet to celebrate the sun, or the praises of

Minerva, is only to render higher praise to God; inconsistency of

this—chaps. lxvi., lxvii. Maintains that the Homeric saying must be

observed, “Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;”

sense in which this must be understood by Christians—chap. lxviii.

Inconsistency on the part of Celsus, after what he has said, in asking

whether God would fight for the Romans, if they were to become converts

to the worship of the Most High—chaps. lxix., lxx. Further

misrepresentations of Celsus pointed out—chap. lxxi. Time will come when

the Word will change every soul into His own perfections—chap. lxxii.

Celsus enjoins us to help the king with all our might, and, if required,

to fight under him, or lead an army along with him: Answer—chap. lxxiii.

Also to take office in the government of the country, if necessary for

the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion: Answer—chap.

lxxv. Conclusion, in which Origen mentions that Celsus had announced his

intention of writing a second treatise, which Origen requests Ambrose to

send him if he should have carried his intentions into execution.

LIFE OF ORIGEN.

Origen was born in all probability at Alexandria, about the year 185

A.D.[1] Notwithstanding that his name is derived from that of an

Egyptian deity (Horus or Or[2]), there seems no reason to doubt that his

parents were Christian at the time of his birth. His father Leonides was

probably, as has been conjectured,[3] one of the many teachers of

rhetoric or grammar who abounded in that city of Grecian culture, and

appears to have been a man of decided piety. Under his superintendence,

the youthful Origen was not only educated in the various branches of

Grecian learning, but was also required daily to commit to memory and to

repeat portions of Scripture prescribed him by his father; and while

under this training, the spirit of inquiry into the meaning of

Scripture, which afterwards formed so striking a feature in the literary

character of the great Alexandrine, began to display itself. Eusebius[4]

relates that he was not satisfied with the plain and obvious meaning of

the text, but sought to penetrate into its deeper signification, and

caused his father trouble by the questions which he put to him regarding

the sense of particular passages of Holy Writ. Leonides, like many

parents, assumed the appearance of rebuking the curiosity of the boy for

inquiring into things which were beyond his youthful capacity, and

recommended him to be satisfied with the simple and apparent meaning of

Scripture, while he is described as inwardly rejoicing at the signs of

talent exhibited by his son, and as giving thanks to God for having made

him the parent of such a child.[5] But this state of things was not to

last; for in the year 202, when Origen was about seventeen years of age,

the great persecution of the Christians under Septimius Severus broke

out, and among the victims was his father Leonides, who was apprehended

and put in prison. Origen wished to share the fate of his father, but

was prevented from quitting his home by the artifice of his mother, who

was obliged to conceal his clothes to prevent him from carrying out his

purpose! He wrote to his father, however, a letter, exhorting him to

constancy under his trials, and entreating him not to change his

convictions for the sake of his family.[6] By the death of his father,

whose property was confiscated to the imperial treasury, Origen was

left, with his mother and six younger brothers dependent upon him for

support. At this juncture, a wealthy and benevolent lady of Alexandria

opened to him her house, of which he became an inmate for a short time.

The society, however, which he found there was far from agreeable to the

feelings of the youth. The lady had adopted as her son one Paul of

Antioch, whom Eusebius terms an “advocate of the heretics then existing

at Alexandria.” The eloquence of the man drew crowds to hear him,

although Origen could never be induced to regard him with any favour,

nor even to join with him in any act of worship, giving then, as

Eusebius remarks, “unmistakeable specimens of the orthodoxy of his

faith.”[7]

Finding his position in this household so uncomfortable, he resolved to

enter upon the career of a teacher of grammar, and to support himself by

his own exertions. As he had been carefully instructed by his father in

Grecian literature, and had devoted himself to study after his death, he

was enabled successfully to carry out his intention. And now begins the

second stadium of his career.

The diligence and ability with which Origen prosecuted his profession

speedily attracted attention and brought him many pupils. Among others

who sought to avail themselves of his instructions in the principles of

the Christian religion, were two young men, who afterwards became

distinguished in the history of the Church,—Plutarch, who died the death

of martyrdom, and Heraclas, who afterwards became bishop of Alexandria.

It was not, however, merely by his success as a teacher that Origen

gained a reputation. The brotherly kindness and unwearied affection

which he displayed to all the victims of the persecution, which at that

time was raging with peculiar severity at Alexandria under the prefect

Aquila, and in which many of his old pupils and friends were martyred,

are described as being so marked and conspicuous, as to draw down upon

him the fury of the mob, so that he was obliged on several occasions to

flee from house to house to escape instant death. It is easy to

understand that services of this kind could not fail to attract the

attention of the heads of the Christian community at Alexandria; and

partly, no doubt, because of these, but chiefly on account of his high

literary reputation, Bishop Demetrius appointed him to the office of

master in the Catechetical School, which was at that time vacant (by the

departure of Clement, who had quitted the city on the outbreak of the

persecution), although he was still a layman, and had not passed his

eighteenth year. The choice of Demetrius was amply justified by the

result. Origen discontinued his instructions in literature, in order to

devote himself exclusively to the work of teaching in the Catechetical

School. For his labours he refused all remuneration. He sold the books

which he possessed,—many of them manuscripts which he himself had

copied,—on condition of receiving from the purchaser four obols[8] a

day; and on this scanty pittance he subsisted, leading for many years a

life of the greatest asceticism and devotion to study. After a day of

labour in the school, he used to devote the greater part of the night to

the investigation of Scripture, sleeping on the bare ground, and keeping

frequent fasts. He carried out literally the command of the Saviour, not

to possess two coats, or to wear shoes, and consummated his work of

mortification of the flesh by an act of self-mutilation, springing from

a perverted interpretation of our Lord’s words in Matt. xix. 12, and

undertaken from a desire to place himself beyond the reach of temptation

in the intercourse which he necessarily had to hold with his youthful

female catechumens.[9] This act was destined to exercise a baneful

influence upon his future fortunes in the Church.

During the episcopate of Zephyrinus (201-218) Origen visited Rome, and

on his return again resumed his duties in the Catechetical School,

transferring the care of the younger catechumens to his friend and

former pupil Heraclas, that he might devote himself with less

distraction to the instruction of the more advanced, and to the more

thorough investigation and exposition of Scripture. With a view to

accomplish this more successfully, it is probable that about this time

he set himself to acquire a knowledge of the Hebrew language, the fruit

of which may be seen in the fragments which remain to us of his _magnum

opus_, the _Hexapla_; and as many among the more cultured heathens,

attracted by his reputation, seem to have attended his lectures, he felt

it necessary to make himself more extensively acquainted with the

doctrines of the Grecian schools, that he might meet his opponents upon

their own ground, and for this purpose he attended the prelections of

Ammonius Saccas, at that time in high repute at Alexandria as an

expounder of the Neo-Platonic philosophy, of which school he has

generally been considered the founder. The influence which the study of

philosophical speculations exerted upon the mind of Origen may be traced

in the whole course of his after development, and proved the fruitful

source of many of those errors which were afterwards laid to his charge,

and the controversies arising out of which disturbed the peace of the

Church during the two following centuries. As was to be expected, the

fame of the great Alexandrine teacher was not confined to his native

city, but spread far and wide; and an evidence of this was the request

made by the Roman governor of the province of Arabia to Demetrius and to

the prefect of Egypt, that they would send Origen to him that he might

hold an interview with one whose reputation was so great. We have no

details of this visit, for all that Eusebius relates is that, “having

accomplished the objects of his journey, he again returned to

Alexandria.”[10] It was in the year 216 that the Emperor Caracalla

visited Alexandria, and directed a bloody persecution against its

inhabitants, especially the literary members of the community, in

revenge for the sarcastic verses which had been composed against him for

the murder of his brother Geta, a crime which he had perpetrated under

circumstances of the basest treachery and cruelty.

Origen occupied too prominent a position in the literary society of the

city to be able to remain with safety, and therefore withdrew to

Palestine to his friend Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, and afterwards to

Cæsarea, where he received an honourable welcome from Bishop

Theoctistus. This step proved the beginning of his after troubles. These

two men, filled with becoming admiration for the most learned teacher in

the Church, requested him to expound the Scriptures in their presence in

a public assembly of the Christians. Origen, although still a layman,

and without any sacerdotal dignity in the Church, complied with the

request. When this proceeding reached the ears of Demetrius, he was

filled with the utmost indignation. “Such an act was never either heard

or done before, that laymen should deliver discourses in the presence of

the bishops,”[11] was his indignant remonstrance to the two offending

bishops, and Origen received a command to return immediately to

Alexandria. He obeyed, and for some years appears to have devoted

himself solely to his studies in his usual spirit of self-abnegation.

It was probably during this period that the commencement of his

friendship with Ambrosius is to be dated. Little is known of this

individual. Eusebius[12] states that he had formerly been an adherent of

the Valentinian heresy, but had been converted by the arguments and

eloquence of Origen to the orthodox faith of the Church. They became

intimate friends; and as Ambrose seems to have been possessed of large

means, and entertained an unbounded admiration of the learning and

abilities of his friend, it was his delight to bear the expenses

attending the transcription and publication of the many works which he

persuaded him to give to the world. He furnished him “with more than

seven amanuenses, who relieved each other at stated times, and with an

equal number of transcribers, along with young girls who had been

practised in caligraphy,”[13] to make fair copies for publication of the

works dictated by Origen. The literary activity of these years must have

been prodigious, and probably they were among the happiest which Origen

ever enjoyed. Engaged in his favourite studies, surrounded by many

friends, adding yearly to his own stores of learning, and enriching the

literature of the Church with treatises of the highest value in the

department of sacred criticism and exegesis, it is difficult to conceive

a condition of things more congenial to the mind of a true scholar. Only

one incident of any importance seems to have taken place during these

peaceful years,—his visit to Julia Mammæa, the pious mother of Alexander

Severus. This noble lady had heard of the fame of Origen, and invited

him to visit her at Antioch, sending a military escort to conduct him

from Alexandria to the Syrian capital. He remained with her some time,

“exhibiting innumerable illustrations of the glory of the Lord, and of

the excellence of divine instruction, and then hastened back to his

accustomed studies.”[14]

These happy years, however, were soon to end. Origen was called to

Greece, probably about the year 228,[15] upon what Eusebius vaguely

calls “the pressing need of ecclesiastical affairs,”[16] but which has

generally been understood[17] to refer to the prevalence of heretical

views in the Church there, for the eradication of which the assistance

of Origen was invoked. Before entering on this journey, he obtained

letters of recommendation from his bishop.[18] He passed through

Palestine on his way to Greece, and at Cæsarea received at the hands of

his friends Alexander and Theoctistus the consecration to the office of

presbyter,—an honour which proved to him afterwards the source of much

persecution and annoyance. No doubt the motives of his friends were of

the highest kind, and among them may have been the desire to take away

the ground of objection formerly raised by Demetrius against the public

preaching of a mere layman in the presence of a bishop. But they little

dreamed of the storm which this act of theirs was to raise, and of the

consequences which it was to bring upon the head of him whom they had

sought to honour. After completing his journey through Greece, Origen

returned to Alexandria about the year 230. He there found his bishop

greatly incensed against him for what had taken place at Cæsarea. Nor

did his anger expend itself in mere objurgations and rebukes. In the

year 231 a synod was summoned by Demetrius, composed of Egyptian bishops

and Alexandrian presbyters, who declared Origen unworthy to hold the

office of teacher, and excommunicated him from the fellowship of the

church of Alexandria. Even this did not satisfy the vindictive feeling

of Demetrius. He summoned a second synod, in which the bishops alone

were permitted to vote, and by their suffrages Origen was degraded from

the office of presbyter, and intimation of this sentence was ordered to

be made by encyclical letter to the various churches. The validity of

the sentence was recognised by all of them, with the exception of those

in Palestine, Phœnicia, Arabia, and Achaia,—a remarkable proof of the

position of influence which was at that time held by the church of

Alexandria. Origen appears to have quitted the city before the bursting

of the storm, and betook himself to Cæsarea, which henceforth became his

home, and the seat of his future labours for a period of nearly a

quarter of a century. The motives which impelled Demetrius to this

treatment of Origen have been variously stated and variously criticised.

Eusebius[19] refers his readers for a full account of all the matters

involved to the treatise which he and Pamphilus composed in his defence;

but this work has not come down to us,[20] although we possess a brief

notice of it in the _Bibliotheca_ of Photius,[21] from which we derive

our knowledge of the proceedings of the two synods. There seems little

reason to doubt that jealousy of interference on the part of the bishops

of another diocese was one main cause of the resentment displayed by

Demetrius; while it is also possible that another alleged cause, the

heterodox character of some of Origen’s opinions, as made known in his

already published works, among which were his _Stromata_ and _De

Principiis_,[22] may have produced some effect upon the minds of the

hostile bishops. Hefele[23] asserts that the act of the Palestinian

bishops was contrary to the Church law of the time, and that Demetrius

was justified on that ground for his procedure against him. But it may

well be doubted whether there was any generally understood law or

practice existing at so early a period of the Church’s history. If so,

it is difficult to understand how it should have been unknown to the

Palestinian bishops; or, on the supposition of any such existing law or

usage, it is equally difficult to conceive that either they themselves

or Origen should have agreed to disregard it, knowing as they did the

jealous temper of Demetrius, displayed on the occasion of Origen’s

preaching at Cæsarea already referred to, and which had drawn from the

Alexandrine bishop an indignant remonstrance, in which he had asserted

that such an act was “quite unheard-of before.”[24] To this statement

the Cæsarean bishops had replied in a letter, in which they enumerated

several instances of laymen who had addressed the congregation.[25] The

probabilities, therefore, are in favour of there being no generally

understood law or practice on the subject, and that the procedure,

therefore, was dictated by hierarchical jealousy on the part of

Demetrius. According to Eusebius,[26] indeed, the act of mutilation

already referred to was made a ground of accusation against Origen; and

there seems no doubt that there existed an old canon of the Church,[27]

based upon the words in Deut. xxiii. 1, which rendered one who had

committed such an act ineligible for office in the Church. But there is

no trace of this act, as disqualifying Origen for the office of

presbyter, having been urged by Demetrius, so far as can be discovered

from the notices of the two synods which have been preserved by Rufinus

and Photius; and it seems extremely probable, as Redepenning

remarks,[28] that if Demetrius were acquainted with this act of Origen,

as Eusebius says he was,[29] he made no public mention of it, far less

that he made it a pretence for his deposition.

Demetrius did not long survive the execution of his vengeance against

his unfortunate catechist. He died about a year afterwards, and was

succeeded by Heraclas, the friend and former pupil of Origen. It does

not, however, appear that Heraclas made any effort to have the sentence

against Origen recalled, so that he might return to the early seat of

his labours. Origen devoted himself at Cæsarea chiefly to exegetical

studies upon the books of Scripture, enjoying the countenance and

friendship of the two bishops Alexander and Theoctistus, who are said by

Eusebius “to have attended him the whole time as pupils do their

master.” He speedily raised the theological school of that city to a

degree of reputation which attracted many pupils. Among those who placed

themselves under his instructions were two young Cappadocians, who had

come to Cæsarea with other intentions, but who were so attracted by the

whole character and personality of Origen, that they immediately became

his pupils. The former of these, afterwards Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop

of New Cæsarea, has left us, in the panegyric which he wrote after a

discipleship of five years, a full and admiring account of the method of

his great master.

The persecution under the Emperor Maximin obliged Origen to take refuge

in Cæsarea in Cappadocia, where he remained in concealment about two

years in the house of a Christian lady named Juliana, who was the

heiress of Symmachus, the Ebionite translator of the Septuagint, and

from whom he obtained several MSS. which had belonged to him. Here,

also, he composed his _Exhortation to Martyrdom_, which was expressly

written for the sake of his friends Ambrosius and Protoctetus, who had

been imprisoned on account of their Christian profession, but who

recovered their freedom after the death of Maximin,—an event which

allowed Origen to return to the Palestinian Cæsarea and to the

prosecution of his labours. A visit to Athens, where he seems to have

remained some time, and to Bostra in Arabia, in order to bring back to

the true faith Bishop Beryllus, who had expressed heterodox opinions

upon the subject of the divinity of Christ, and in which attempt he

proved successful, were the chief events of his life during the next

five years. On the outbreak of the Decian persecution, however, in 249,

he was imprisoned at Tyre, to which city he had gone from Cæsarea for

some unknown reason, and was made to suffer great cruelties by his

persecutors. The effect of these upon a frame worn out by ascetic

labours may be easily conceived. Although he survived his imprisonment,

his body was so weakened by his sufferings, that he died at Tyre in 254,

in the seventieth year of his age.

The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral

qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts. The history of

the church records the names of few whose patience and meekness under

unmerited suffering were more conspicuous than his. How very differently

would Jerome have acted under circumstances like those which led to

Origen’s banishment from Alexandria! and what a favourable contrast is

presented by the self-denying asceticism of his whole life, to the sins

which stained the early years of Augustine prior to his conversion! The

impression which his whole personality made upon those who came within

the sphere of his influence is evidenced in a remarkable degree by the

admiring affection displayed towards him by his friend Ambrose and his

pupil Gregory. Nor was it friends alone that he so impressed. To him

belongs the rare honour of convincing heretics of their errors, and of

leading them back to the church,—a result which must have been due as

much to the gentleness and earnestness of his Christian character, as to

the prodigious learning, marvellous acuteness, and logical power, which

entitle him to be regarded as the greatest of the Fathers. It is

singular, indeed, that a charge of heresy should have been brought, not

only after his death, but even during his life, against one who rendered

such eminent services to the cause of orthodox Christianity. But this

charge must be considered in reference to the times when he lived and

wrote. No General Council had yet been held to settle authoritatively

the doctrine of the church upon any of those great questions, the

discussion of which convulsed the Christian world during the two

following centuries; and in these circumstances greater latitude was

naturally permissible than would have been justifiable at a later

period. Moreover, a mind so speculative as that of Origen, and so

engrossed with the deepest and most difficult problems of human thought,

must sometimes have expressed itself in a way liable to be

misunderstood. But no doubt the chief cause of his being regarded as a

heretic is to be found in the haste with which he allowed many of his

writings to be published. Had he considered more carefully what he

intended to bring before the public eye, less occasion would have been

furnished to objectors, and the memory of one of the greatest scholars

and most devoted Christians that the world has ever seen would have been

freed, to a great extent at least, from the reproach of heresy.

Origen was a very voluminous author. Jerome says that he wrote more than

any individual could read; and Epiphanius (_Hœres._ lxiv. 63) relates

that his writings amounted to 6000 volumes, by which statement we are

probably to understand that every individual treatise, large or small,

including each of the numerous homilies, was counted as a separate

volume. The admiration entertained for him by his friend Ambrosius, and

the readiness with which the latter bore all the expenses of

transcription and publication, led Origen to give to the world much

which otherwise would never have seen the light.

The works of the great Adamantinus may be classed under the following

divisions:—

EXEGETICAL WORKS.

These comprise Σχόλια, brief notes on Scripture, of which only fragments

remain: Τόμοι, Commentaries, lengthened expositions, of which we possess

considerable portions, including those on Matthew, John, and Epistle to

the Romans; and about 200 Homilies, upon the principal books of the Old

and New Testaments, a full list of which may be seen in Migne’s edition.

In these works his peculiar system of interpretation found ample scope

for exercise; and although he carried out his principle of allegorizing

many things, which in their historical and literal signification

offended his exegetical sense, he nevertheless maintains that “the

passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more

numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning;”[30] and

the student will find much that is striking and suggestive in his

remarks upon the various passages which he brings under review. For an

account of his method of interpreting Scripture, and the grounds on

which he based it, the reader may consult the fourth book of the

treatise _On the Principles_.

CRITICAL WORKS.

The great critical work of Origen was the Hexapla or Six-columned

Bible,—an attempt to provide a revised text of the Septuagint

translation of Old Testament Scripture. On this undertaking he is said

to have spent eight-and-twenty years of his life, and to have acquired a

knowledge of Hebrew in order to qualify himself for the task. Each page

of this work consisted, with the exception to be noticed immediately, of

six columns. In the first was placed the current Hebrew text; in the

second, the same represented in _Greek_ letters; in the third, the

version of Aquila; in the fourth, that of Symmachus; in the fifth, the

text of the LXX., as it existed at the time; and in the sixth, the

version of Theodotion. Having come into possession also of certain other

Greek translations of some of the books of Scripture, he added these in

their appropriate place, so that the work presented in some parts the

appearance of seven, eight, or nine columns, and was termed Heptapla,

Octopla, or Enneapla, in consequence. He inserted critical marks in the

text of the LXX., an asterisk to denote what ought to be added, and an

obelus to denote what ought to be omitted; taking the additions chiefly

from the version of Theodotion. The work, with the omission of the

Hebrew column, and that representing the Hebrew in Greek letters, was

termed Tetrapla; and with regard to it, it is uncertain whether it is to

be considered a preliminary work on the part of Origen, undertaken by

way of preparation for the larger, or merely as an excerpt from the

latter. The whole extended, it is said, to nearly fifty volumes, and

was, of course, far too bulky for common use, and too costly for

transcription. It was placed in some repository in the city of Tyre,

from which it was removed after Origen’s death to the library at

Cæsarea, founded by Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius. It is supposed to

have been burnt at the capture of Cæsarea by the Arabs in 653 A.D. The

column, however, containing the version of the LXX. had been copied by

Pamphilus and Eusebius, along with the critical marks of Origen,

although, owing to carelessness on the part of subsequent transcribers,

the text was soon again corrupted. The remains of this work were

published by Montfaucon at Paris, 1713, 2 vols. folio; by Bahrdt at

Leipsic in 1769; and is at present again in course of publication from

the Clarendon Press, Oxford, under the editorship of Mr. Field, who has

made use of the Syriac-Hexaplar version, and has added various fragments

not contained in prior editions. (For a full and critical account of

this work, the English reader is referred to Dr. Sam. Davidson’s

_Biblical Criticism_, vol. i. ch. xii., which has been made use of for

the above notice.)

APOLOGETICAL WORKS.

His great apologetical work was the treatise undertaken at the special

request of his friend Ambrosius, in answer to the attack of the heathen

philosopher Celsus on the Christian religion, in a work which he

entitled Λόγος ἀληθής, or _A True Discourse_. Origen states that he had

heard that there were two individuals of this name, both of them

Epicureans, the earlier of the two having lived in the time of Nero, and

the other in the time of Adrian, or later.[31] Redepenning is of opinion

that Celsus must have composed his work in the time of Marcus Aurelius

(161-180 A.D.), on account of his supposed mention of the Marcionites

(whose leader did not make his appearance at Rome before 142 A.D.), and

of the Marcellians (followers of the Carpocratian Marcellina), a sect

which was founded after the year 155 A.D. under Bishop Anicetus.[32]

Origen believed his opponent to be an Epicurean, but to have adopted

other doctrines than those of Epicurus, because he thought that by so

doing he could assail Christianity to greater advantage.[33] The work

which Origen composed in answer to the so-styled _True Discourse_

consists of eight books, and belongs to the latest years of his life. It

has always been regarded as the great apologetic work of antiquity; and

no one can peruse it without being struck by the multifarious reading,

wonderful acuteness, and rare subtlety of mind which it displays. But

the rule which Origen prescribed to himself, of not allowing a single

objection of his opponent to remain unanswered, leads him into a

minuteness of detail, and into numerous repetitions, which fatigue the

reader, and detract from the interest and unity of the work. He himself

confesses that he began it on one plan, and carried it out on

another.[34] No doubt, had he lived to re-write and condense it, it

would have been more worthy of his reputation. But with all its defects,

it is a great work, and well deserves the notice of the students of

Apologetics. The table of contents prefixed to the translation will

convey a better idea of its nature than any description which our limits

would permit us to give.

DOGMATIC WORKS.

These include the Στρωματεῖς, a work composed in imitation of the

treatise of Clement of the same name, and consisting originally of ten

books, of which only three fragments exist in a Latin version by Jerome

(Migne, vol. i. pp. 102-107); a treatise on the Resurrection, of which

four fragments remain (Migne, vol. i. pp. 91-100); and the treatise Περὶ

Ἀρχῶν, _De Principiis_, which contains Origen’s views on the various

questions of systematic theology. The work has come down to us in the

Latin translation of his admirer Rufinus; but, from a comparison of the

few fragments of the original Greek which have been preserved, we see

that Rufinus was justly chargeable with altering many of Origen’s

expressions, in order to bring his doctrine on certain points more into

harmony with the orthodox views of the time. The _De Principiis_

consists of four books, and is translated in the first volume of the

works of Origen in this series, to which we refer the reader.

PRACTICAL WORKS.

Under this head we place the little treatise Περὶ Εὐχῆς, _On Prayer_,

written at the instance of his friend Ambrose, and which contains an

exposition of the Lord’s Prayer; the Λόγος προτρεπτικὸς εἰς μαρτύριον,

_Exhortation to Martyrdom_, composed at the outbreak of the persecution

by Maximian, when his friends Ambrose and Protoctetus were imprisoned.

Of his numerous letters only two have come down entire, viz. that which

was addressed to Julius Africanus, who had questioned the genuineness of

the history of Susanna in the apocryphal additions to the book of

Daniel, and that to Gregory Thaumaturgus on the use of Greek philosophy

in the explanation of Scripture, although, from the brevity of the

latter, it is questionable whether it is more than a fragment of the

original. (Both of these are translated in the first volume of Origen’s

works in this series.) The Φιλοκαλία, _Philocalia_, was a compilation

from the writings of Origen, intended to explain the difficult passages

of Scripture, and executed by Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus;

large extracts of which have been preserved, especially of that part

which was taken from the treatise against Celsus. The remains were first

printed at Paris in 1618, and again at Cambridge in 1676, in the reprint

of Spencer’s edition of the _Contra Celsum_. In the Benedictine edition,

and in Migne’s reprint, the various portions are quoted in footnotes

under the respective passages of Origen’s writings.

EDITIONS OF ORIGEN.

The first published works of Origen were his Homilies, which appeared in

1475, although neither the name of the publisher nor the place of

publication is given. These were followed by the treatise against Celsus

in the translation of Christopher Persana, which appeared at Rome in

1481; and this, again, by an edition of the Homilies at Venice in 1503,

containing those on the four first books of Moses, Joshua, and Judges.

The first collective edition of the whole works was given to the world

in a Latin translation by James Merlin, and was published in two folio

volumes, first at Paris in 1512 and 1519, and afterwards at Paris in

1522 and 1530. A revision of Merlin’s edition was begun by Erasmus, and

completed, after his death, by Beatus Rhenanus. This appeared at Basle

in 1536 in two folio volumes, and again in 1557 and 1571. A much better

and more complete edition was undertaken by the Benedictine Gilbertus

Genebrardus, which was published also in two volumes folio at Paris in

1574, and again in 1604 and 1619. Hoeschel published the treatise

against Celsus at Augsburg in 1605; Spencer, at Cambridge in 1658 and

1677, to which was added the _Philocalia_, which had first appeared in a

Latin translation by Genebrardus, and afterwards in Greek by Tarinus at

Paris in 1618 and 1624, in quarto. Huet, Bishop of Avranches, published

the exegetical writings in Greek, including the Commentaries on Matthew

and John, in two volumes folio, of which the one appeared at Rouen in

1668, and the other at Paris in 1679. The great edition by the two

learned Benedictines of St. Maur—Charles de la Rue, and his nephew

Vincent de la Rue—was published at Paris between the years 1733 and

1759. This is a work of immense industry and labour, and remains the

standard to the present time. It has been reprinted by Migne in his

series of the Greek Fathers, in nine volumes, large 8vo. In Oberthür’s

series of the Greek Fathers, seven volumes contain the chief portion of

Origen’s writings; while Lommatzsch has published the whole in

twenty-five small volumes, Berlin 1831-48, containing the Greek text

alone.—[Abridged from Redepenning.]

For further information upon the life and opinions of Origen, the reader

may consult Redepenning’s _Origenes_, 2 vols., Bonn 1841, 1846; the

articles in Herzog’s _Encyclopädie_ and Wetzer’s and Wette’s

_Kirchen-Lexikon_, by Kling and Hefele respectively; the brilliant

sketch by Pressensé in his _Martyrs and Apologists_ (Harwood’s

translation); and the learned compilation of Huet, entitled

_Origeniana_, to be found in the ninth volume of Migne’s edition.

Footnote 1:

Cf. Redepenning’s _Origenes_, vol. i. pp. 417-420 (Erste Beilage: über

Origenes Geburtsjahr und den Ort, wo er geboren wurde).

Footnote 2:

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

Footnote 3:

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

Footnote 4:

_Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. ii. § 9.

Footnote 5:

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

Footnote 6:

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

φρονήσης.

Footnote 7:

τῆς ἐξ ἐκείνου περὶ τὴν πίστιν ὀρθοδοξίας ἐναργῆ παρείχετο δείγματα.

Footnote 8:

The obol was about three-halfpence of our money.

Footnote 9:

For a full discussion of the doubts which have been thrown upon the

credibility of Eusebius in this matter by Schnitzer and Baur, cf.

Redepenning, _Origenes_, vol. i. pp. 444-458, and Hefele,

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

Footnote 10:

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

Footnote 11:

_Ibid._ b. vi. c. 19.

Footnote 12:

_Ibid._ b. vi. c. 18.

Footnote 13:

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

Footnote 14:

Euseb. _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. 21: παρ’ ᾗ χρόνον διατρίψας, πλεῖστά

τε ὅσα εἰς τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου δόξαν καὶ τῆς τοῦ θείου διδασκαλείον ἀρετῆς

ἐπιδειξάμενος, ἐπὶ τὰς συνήθεις ἔσπευδε διατριβάς.

Footnote 15:

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

Footnote 16:

Ἐπειγούσης χρείας ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἕνεκα πραγμάτων.

Footnote 17:

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

Footnote 18:

Cf. _ibid._

Footnote 19:

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

Footnote 20:

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

Footnote 21:

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

Footnote 22:

Eusebius expressly mentions that both these works, among others, were

published before he left Alexandria.—_Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. 24.

Footnote 23:

_s.v._ Origenes.

Footnote 24:

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

Footnote 25:

_Ibid._

Footnote 26:

_Ibid._ b. vi. c. 8.

Footnote 27:

ὁ ἀκρωτηριάσας ἑαυτὸν μὴ γενέσθω κληρικος. Cf. Redepenning, vol. i.

pp. 208, 216, 218.

Footnote 28:

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

Footnote 29:

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

Footnote 30:

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

Footnote 31:

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

Footnote 32:

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

Footnote 33:

_Contra Celsum_, i. ch. viii.

Footnote 34:

Preface, § 6; cf. vol. i. p. 397.

ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS.

BOOK II.

Chapter I.

The first book of our answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled _A True

Discourse_, which concluded with the representation of the Jew

addressing Jesus, having now extended to a sufficient length, we intend

the present part as a reply to the charges brought by him against those

who have been converted from Judaism to Christianity. And we call

attention, in the first place, to this special question, viz. why

Celsus, when he had once resolved upon the introduction of individuals

upon the stage of his book, did not represent the Jew as addressing the

converts from heathenism rather than those from Judaism, seeing that his

discourse, if directed to us, would have appeared more likely to produce

an impression.[35] But probably this claimant to universal knowledge

does not know what is appropriate in the matter of such representations;

and therefore let us proceed to consider what he has to say to the

converts from Judaism. He asserts that “they have forsaken the law of

their fathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus;

that they have been most ridiculously deceived, and that they have

become deserters to another name and to another mode of life.” Here he

has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted the law of

their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions,

receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the

literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies “poor” among the

Jews,[36] and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by

the name of Ebionites. Nay, Peter himself seems to have observed for a

considerable time the Jewish observances enjoined by the law of Moses,

not having yet learned from Jesus to ascend from the law that is

regulated according to the letter, to that which is interpreted

according to the spirit,—a fact which we learn from the Acts of the

Apostles. For on the day after the angel of God appeared to Cornelius,

suggesting to him “to send to Joppa, to Simon surnamed Peter,” Peter

“went up into the upper room to pray about the sixth hour. And he became

very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready he fell

into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending

unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let

down to the earth; wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts, and

creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air. And there came a

voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord;

for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice

spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call

thou not common.”[37] Now observe how, by this instance, Peter is

represented as still observing the Jewish customs respecting clean and

unclean animals. And from the narrative that follows, it is manifest

that he, as being yet a Jew, and living according to their traditions,

and despising those who were beyond the pale of Judaism, stood in need

of a vision to lead him to communicate to Cornelius (who was not an

Israelite according to the flesh), and to those who were with him, the

word of faith. Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul states

that Peter, still from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of

James to eat with the Gentiles, and “separated himself from them,

fearing them that were of the circumcision;”[38] and the rest of the

Jews, and Barnabas also, followed the same course. And certainly it was

quite consistent that those should not abstain from the observance of

Jewish usages who were sent to minister to the circumcision, when they

who “seemed to be pillars” gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and

Barnabas, in order that, while devoting themselves to the circumcision,

the latter might preach to the Gentiles. And why do I mention that they

who preached to the circumcision withdrew and separated themselves from

the heathen, when even Paul himself “became as a Jew to the Jews, that

he might gain the Jews?” Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles it

is related that he even brought an offering to the altar, that he might

satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their law.[39] Now, if

Celsus had been acquainted with all these circumstances, he would not

have represented the Jew holding such language as this to the converts

from Judaism: “What induced you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon the law

of your fathers, and to allow your minds to be led captive by him with

whom we have just conversed, and thus be most ridiculously deluded, so

as to become deserters from us to another name, and to the practices of

another life?”

Footnote 35:

πιθανώτατος.

Footnote 36:

אֶבְיוֹן.

Footnote 37:

Cf. Acts x. 9-15.

Footnote 38:

Cf. Gal. ii. 12.

Footnote 39:

Cf. Acts xxi. 26.

Chapter II.

Now, since we are upon the subject of Peter, and of the teachers of

Christianity to the circumcision, I do not deem it out of place to quote

a certain declaration of Jesus taken from the Gospel according to John,

and to give the explanation of the same. For it is there related that

Jesus said: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear

them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide

you into all the truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but

whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak.”[40] And when we inquire

what were the “many things” referred to in the passage which Jesus had

to say to His disciples, but which they were not then able to bear, I

have to observe that, probably because the apostles were Jews, and had

been trained up according to the letter of the Mosaic law, He was unable

to tell them what was the true law, and how the Jewish worship consisted

in the pattern and shadow of certain heavenly things, and how future

blessings were foreshadowed by the injunctions regarding meats and

drinks, and festivals, and new moons, and sabbaths. These were many of

the subjects which He had to explain to them; but as He saw that it was

a work of exceeding difficulty to root out of the mind opinions that

have been almost born with a man, and amid which he has been brought up

till he reached the period of maturity, and which have produced in those

who have adopted them the belief that they are divine, and that it is an

act of impiety to overthrow them; and to demonstrate by the superiority

of Christian doctrine, that is, by the truth, in a manner to convince

the hearers, that such opinions were but “loss and dung,” He postponed

such a task to a future season—to that, namely, which followed His

passion and resurrection. For the bringing of aid unseasonably to those

who were not yet capable of receiving it, might have overturned the idea

which they had already formed of Jesus, as the Christ, and the Son of

the living God. And see if there is not some well-grounded reason for

such a statement as this, “I have many things to say unto you, but ye

cannot bear them now;” seeing there are many points in the law which

require to be explained and cleared up in a spiritual sense, and these

the disciples were in a manner unable to bear, having been born and

brought up amongst Jews. I am of opinion, moreover, that since these

rites were typical, and the truth was that which was to be taught them

by the Holy Spirit, these words were added, “When He is come who is the

Spirit of truth, He will lead you into all the truth;” as if He had

said, into all the truth about those things which, being to you but

types, ye believed to constitute a true worship which ye rendered unto

God. And so, according to the promise of Jesus, the Spirit of truth came

to Peter, saying to him, with regard to the four-footed beasts, and

creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air: “Arise, Peter; kill,

and eat.” And the Spirit came to him while he was still in a state of

superstitious ignorance; for he said, in answer to the divine command,

“Not so, Lord; for I have never yet eaten anything common or unclean.”

He instructed him, however, in the true and spiritual meaning of meats,

by saying, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” And so,

after that vision, the Spirit of truth, which conducted Peter into all

the truth, told him the many things which he was unable to bear when

Jesus was still with him in the flesh. But I shall have another

opportunity of explaining those matters, which are connected with the

literal acceptation of the Mosaic law.

Footnote 40:

John xvi. 12, 13.

Chapter III.

Our present object, however, is to expose the ignorance of Celsus, who

makes this Jew of his address his fellow-citizen and the Israelitish

converts in the following manner: “What induced you to abandon the law

of your fathers?” etc. Now, how should they have abandoned the law of

their fathers, who are in the habit of rebuking those who do not listen

to its commands, saying, “Tell me, ye who read the law, do ye not hear

the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons;” and so on, down

to the place, “which things are an allegory,”[41] etc.? And how have

they abandoned the law of their fathers, who are ever speaking of the

usages of their fathers in such words as these: “Or does not the law say

these things also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not

muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God care for

oxen? or saith He it altogether for our sakes? for for our sakes it was

written,” and so on?[42] Now, how confused is the reasoning of the Jew

in regard to these matters (although he had it in his power to speak

with greater effect) when he says: “Certain among you have abandoned the

usages of our fathers under a pretence of explanations and allegories;

and some of you, although, as ye pretend, interpreting them in a

spiritual manner, nevertheless do observe the customs of our fathers;

and some of you, without any such interpretation, are willing to accept

Jesus as the subject of prophecy, and to keep the law of Moses according

to the customs of the fathers, as having in the words the whole mind of

the Spirit.” Now how was Celsus able to see these things so clearly in

this place, when in the subsequent parts of his work he makes mention of

certain godless heresies altogether alien from the doctrine of Jesus,

and even of others which leave the Creator out of account altogether,

and does not appear to know that there are Israelites who are converts

to Christianity, and who have not abandoned the law of their fathers? It

was not his object to investigate everything here in the spirit of

truth, and to accept whatever he might find to be useful; but he

composed these statements in the spirit of an enemy, and with a desire

to overthrow everything as soon as he heard it.

Footnote 41:

Gal. iv. 21, 22.

Footnote 42:

1 Cor. ix. 8.

Chapter IV.

The Jew, then, continues his address to converts from his own nation

thus: “Yesterday and the day before, when we visited with punishment the

man who deluded you, ye became apostates from the law of your fathers;”

showing by such statements (as we have just demonstrated) anything but

an exact knowledge of the truth. But what he advances afterwards seems

to have some force, when he says: “How is it that you take the beginning

of your system from our worship, and when you have made some progress

you treat it with disrespect, although you have no other foundation to

show for your doctrines than our law?” Now, certainly the introduction

to Christianity is through the Mosaic worship and the prophetic

writings; and after the introduction, it is in the interpretation and

explanation of these that progress takes place, while those who are

introduced prosecute their investigations into “the mystery according to

revelation, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made

manifest in the Scriptures of the prophets,”[43] and by the appearance

of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they who advance in the knowledge of

Christianity do not, as ye allege, treat the things written in the law

with disrespect. On the contrary, they bestow upon them greater honour,

showing what a depth of wise and mysterious reasons is contained in

these writings, which are not fully comprehended by the Jews, who treat

them superficially, and as if they were in some degree even

fabulous.[44] And what absurdity should there be in our system—that is,

the gospel—having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus

Himself said to those who would not believe upon Him: “If ye had

believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. But if ye

do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”[45] Nay,

even one of the evangelists—Mark—says: “The beginning of the gospel of

Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send my

messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee,”[46]

which shows that the beginning of the gospel is connected with the

Jewish writings. What force, then, is there in the objection of the Jew

of Celsus, that “if any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to

visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God?”

Or how is it a charge against Christianity, that John, who baptized

Jesus, was a Jew? For although He was a Jew, it does not follow that

every believer, whether a convert from heathenism or from Judaism, must

yield a literal obedience to the law of Moses.

Footnote 43:

Rom. xvi. 25.

Footnote 44:

τῶν ἐπιπολαιότερον καὶ μυθικώτερον αὐτοῖς ἐντυγκανόντων.

Footnote 45:

John v. 46, 47.

Footnote 46:

Mark i. 1, 2.

Chapter V.

After these matters, although Celsus becomes tautological in his

statements about Jesus, repeating for the second time that “he was

punished by the Jews for his crimes,” we shall not again take up the

defence, being satisfied with what we have already said. But, in the

next place, as this Jew of his disparages the doctrine regarding the

resurrection of the dead, and the divine judgment, and of the rewards to

be bestowed upon the just, and of the fire which is to devour the

wicked, as being stale[47] opinions, and thinks that he will overthrow

Christianity by asserting that there is nothing new in its teaching upon

these points, we have to say to him, that our Lord, seeing the conduct

of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the teaching of the

prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of God would be taken

from them, and given to the converts from heathenism. For which reason,

now, we may also see of a truth that all the doctrines of the Jews of

the present day are mere trifles and fables,[48] since they have not the

light that proceeds from the knowledge of the Scriptures; whereas those

of the Christians are the truth, having power to raise and elevate the

soul and understanding of man, and to persuade him to seek a

citizenship, not like the earthly[49] Jews here below, but in heaven.

And this result shows itself among those who are able to see the

grandeur of the ideas contained in the law and the prophets, and who are

able to commend them to others.

Footnote 47:

ἕωλα.

Footnote 48:

μύθους καὶ λήρους.

Footnote 49:

τοῖς κάτω Ἰουδαίοις.

Chapter VI.

But let it be granted that Jesus observed all the Jewish usages,

including even their sacrificial observances, what does that avail to

prevent our recognising Him as the Son of God? Jesus, then, is the Son

of God, who gave the law and the prophets; and we, who belong to the

church, do not transgress the law, but have escaped the

mythologizings[50] of the Jews, and have our minds chastened and

educated by the mystical contemplation of the law and the prophets. For

the prophets themselves, as not resting the sense of these words in the

plain history which they relate, nor in the legal enactments taken

according to the word and letter, express themselves somewhere, when

about to relate histories, in words like this, “I will open my mouth in

parables, I will utter hard sayings of old;”[51] and in another place,

when offering up a prayer regarding the law as being obscure, and

needing divine help for its comprehension, they offer up this prayer,

“Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy

law.”[52]

Footnote 50:

μυθολογίας.

Footnote 51:

Ps. lxxvii. 2.

Footnote 52:

Ps. cxix. 18.

Chapter VII.

Moreover, let them show where there is to be found even the appearance

of language dictated by arrogance,[53] and proceeding from Jesus. For

how could an arrogant man thus express himself, “Learn of me, for I am

meek and lowly of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls?”[54] or

how can He be styled arrogant, who after supper laid aside His garments

in the presence of His disciples, and, after girding Himself with a

towel, and pouring water into a basin, proceeded to wash the feet of

each disciple, and rebuked him who was unwilling to allow them to be

washed, with the words, “Except I wash thee, thou hast no part with

me?”[55] Or how could He be called such who said, “I was amongst you,

not as he that sitteth at meat, but as he that serveth?”[56] And let any

one show what were the falsehoods which He uttered, and let him point

out what are great and what are small falsehoods, that he may prove

Jesus to have been guilty of the former. And there is yet another way in

which we may confute him. For as one falsehood is not less or more false

than another, so one truth is not less or more true than another. And

what charges of impiety he has to bring against Jesus, let the Jew of

Celsus especially bring forward. Was it impious to abstain from

corporeal circumcision, and from a literal Sabbath, and literal

festivals, and literal new moons, and from clean and unclean meats, and

to turn the mind to the good and true and spiritual law of God, while at

the same time he who was an ambassador for Christ knew how to become to

the Jews as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to those who are

under the law, as under the law, that he might gain those who are under

the law?

Footnote 53:

ἀλαζονεία.

Footnote 54:

Matt. xi. 29.

Footnote 55:

John xvi. 4.

Footnote 56:

Luke xxii. 27.

Chapter VIII.

He says, further, that “many other persons would appear such as Jesus

was, to those who were willing to be deceived.” Let this Jew of Celsus

then show us, not many persons, nor even a few, but a single individual,

such as Jesus was, introducing among the human race, with the power that

was manifested in Him, a system of doctrine and opinions beneficial to

human life, and which converts men from the practice of wickedness. He

says, moreover, that this charge is brought against the Jews by the

Christian converts, that they have not believed in Jesus as in God. Now

on this point we have, in the preceding pages, offered a preliminary

defence, showing at the same time in what respects we understand Him to

be God, and in what we take Him to be man. “How should we,” he

continues, “who have made known to all men that there is to come from

God one who is to punish the wicked, treat him with disregard when he

came?” And to this, as an exceedingly silly argument, it does not seem

to me reasonable to offer any answer. It is as if some one were to say,

“How could we, who teach temperance, commit any act of licentiousness?

or we, who are ambassadors for righteousness, be guilty of any

wickedness?” For as these inconsistencies are found among men, so, to

say that they believed the prophets when speaking of the future advent

of Christ, and yet refused their belief to Him when He came, agreeably

to prophetic statement, was quite in keeping with human nature. And

since we must add another reason, we shall remark that this very result

was foretold by the prophets. Isaiah distinctly declares: “Hearing ye

shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall

not perceive: for the heart of this people has become fat,”[57] etc. And

let them explain why it was predicted to the Jews, that although they

both heard and saw, they would not understand what was said, nor

perceive what was seen as they ought. For it is indeed manifest, that

when they beheld Jesus they did not see who He was; and when they heard

Him, they did not understand from His words the divinity that was in

Him, and which transferred God’s providential care, hitherto exercised

over the Jews, to His converts from the heathen. Therefore we may see,

that after the advent of Jesus the Jews were altogether abandoned, and

possess now none of what were considered their ancient glories, so that

there is no indication of any Divinity abiding amongst them. For they

have no longer prophets nor miracles, traces of which to a considerable

extent are still found among Christians, and some of them more

remarkable than any that existed among the Jews; and these we ourselves

have witnessed, if our testimony may be received. But the Jew of Celsus

exclaims: “Why did we treat him, whom we announced beforehand, with

dishonour? Was it that we might be chastised more than others?” To which

we have to answer, that on account of their unbelief, and the other

insults which they heaped upon Jesus, the Jews will not only suffer more

than others in that judgment which is believed to impend over the world,

but have even already endured such sufferings. For what nation is an

exile from their own metropolis, and from the place sacred to the

worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And these calamities they

have suffered, because they were a most wicked nation, which, although

guilty of many other sins, yet has been punished so severely for none,

as for those that were committed against our Jesus.

Footnote 57:

Isa. vi. 9.

Chapter IX.

The Jew continues his discourse thus: “How should we deem him to be a

God, who not only in other respects, as was currently reported,

performed none of his promises, but who also, after we had convicted

him, and condemned him as deserving of punishment, was found attempting

to conceal himself, and endeavouring to escape in a most disgraceful

manner, and who was betrayed by those whom he called disciples? And

yet,” he continues, “he who was a God could neither flee nor be led away

a prisoner; and least of all could he be deserted and delivered up by

those who had been his associates, and had shared all things in common,

and had had him for their teacher, who was deemed to be a Saviour, and a

Son of the greatest God, and an angel.” To which we reply, that even we

do not suppose the body of Jesus, which was then an object of sight and

perception, to have been God. And why do I say His body? Nay, not even

His soul, of which it is related, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even

unto death.”[58] But as, according to the Jewish manner of speaking, “I

am the Lord, the God of all flesh,” and, “Before me there was no God

formed, neither shall there be after me,” God is believed to be He who

employs the soul and body of the prophet as an instrument; and as,

according to the Greeks, he who says,

“I know both the number of the sand, and the measures of the sea,

And I understand a dumb man, and hear him who does not speak,”[59]

is considered to be a god when speaking, and making himself heard

through the Pythian priestess; so, according to our view, it was the

Logos God, and Son of the God of all things, who spake in Jesus these

words, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;” and these, “I am the

door;” and these, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven;”

and other expressions similar to these. We therefore charge the Jews

with not acknowledging Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in

many passages by the prophets, to the effect that He was a mighty power,

and a God next to[60] the God and Father of all things. For we assert

that it was to Him the Father gave the command, when in the Mosaic

account of the creation He uttered the words, “Let there be light,” and

“Let there be a firmament,” and gave the injunctions with regard to

those other creative acts which were performed; and that to Him also

were addressed the words, “Let us make man in our own image and

likeness;” and that the Logos, when commanded, obeyed all the Father’s

will. And we make these statements not from our own conjectures, but

because we believe the prophecies circulated among the Jews, in which it

is said of God, and of the works of creation, in express words, as

follows: “He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were

created.”[61] Now if God gave the command, and the creatures were

formed, who, according to the view of the spirit of prophecy, could he

be that was able to carry out such commands of the Father, save Him who,

so to speak, is the living Logos and the Truth? And that the Gospels do

not consider him who in Jesus said these words, “I am the way, and the

truth, and the life,” to have been of so circumscribed a nature,[62] as

to have an existence nowhere out of the soul and body of Jesus, is

evident both from many considerations, and from a few instances of the

following kind which we shall quote. John the Baptist, when predicting

that the Son of God was to appear immediately, not in that body and

soul, but as manifesting Himself everywhere, says regarding Him: “There

stands in the midst of you One whom ye know not, who cometh after

me.”[63] For if he had thought that the Son of God was only there, where

was the visible body of Jesus, how could he have said, “There stands in

the midst of you One whom ye know not?” And Jesus Himself, in raising

the minds of His disciples to higher thoughts of the Son of God, says:

“Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the

midst of you.”[64] And of the same nature is His promise to His

disciples: “Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.”[65]

And we quote these passages, making no distinction between the Son of

God and Jesus. For the soul and body of Jesus formed, after the

οἰκονομία, one being with the Logos of God. Now if, according to Paul’s

teaching, “he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit,”[66] every one

who understands what being joined to the Lord is, and who has been

actually joined to Him, is one spirit with the Lord; how should not that

being be one in a far greater and more divine degree, which was once

united with the Logos of God?[67] He, indeed, manifested Himself among

the Jews as the power of God, by the miracles which He performed, which

Celsus suspected were accomplished by sorcery, but which by the Jews of

that time were attributed, I know not why, to Beelzebub, in the words:

“He casteth out devils through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.”[68]

But these our Saviour convicted of uttering the greatest absurdities,

from the fact that the kingdom of evil was not yet come to an end. And

this will be evident to all intelligent readers of the Gospel narrative,

which it is not now the time to explain.

Footnote 58:

Matt. xxvi. 38.

Footnote 59:

Herodot. b. i. 47.

Footnote 60:

καὶ Θεὸν κατὰ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα. “Ex mente Origenis, inquit

Boherellus, vertendum ‘Secundo post universi Deum atque parentem

loco;’ non cum interprete Gelenio, ‘Ipsius rerum universarum Dei atque

Parentis testimonio.’ Nam si hic esset sensus, frustra post ὑπὸ τῶν

προφητῶν, adderetur κατὰ τὸν Θεόν. Præterea, hæc epitheta, τὸν τῶν

ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, manifestam continent antithesin ad ista, μεγάλην

ὄντα δύναμιν καὶ Θεόν, ut Pater supra Filium evehatur, quemadmodum

evehitur ab Origene infra libro octavo, num. 15. Τοῦ, κατά, inferiorem

ordinem denotantis exempla afferre supersedeo, cum obvia sint.”—RUÆUS.

Footnote 61:

Ps. cxlviii. 5.

Footnote 62:

περιγεγραμμένον τινα.

Footnote 63:

John i. 26.

Footnote 64:

Matt. xviii. 20.

Footnote 65:

Matt. xxviii. 20.

Footnote 66:

1 Cor. vi. 16.

Footnote 67:

εἰ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν Παύλου διδασκαλίαν, λέγοντος· “ὁ κολλώμενος τῷ κυρίῳ,

ἓν πνεῦμα ἐστι·” πᾶς ὁ νοήσας τί τὸ κολλᾶσθαι τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ κολληθεὶς

αὐτῷ, ἕν ἐστι πνεῦμα πρὸς τὸν κύριον· πῶς οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον θειοτέρως

καὶ μειζόνως ἕν ἐστι τὸ ποτε σύνθετον πρὸς τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ;

Footnote 68:

Matt. xii. 24.

Chapter X.

But what promise did Jesus make which He did not perform? Let Celsus

produce any instance of such, and make good his charge. But he will be

unable to do so, especially since it is from mistakes, arising either

from misapprehension of the Gospel narratives, or from Jewish stories,

that he thinks to derive the charges which he brings against Jesus or

against ourselves. Moreover, again, when the Jew says, “We both found

him guilty, and condemned him as deserving of death,” let them show how

they who sought to concoct false witness against Him proved Him to be

guilty. Was not the great charge against Jesus, which His accusers

brought forward, this, that He said, “I am able to destroy the temple of

God, and after three days to raise it up again?”[69] But in so saying,

He spake of the temple of His body; while they thought, not being able

to understand the meaning of the speaker, that His reference was to the

temple of stone, which was treated by the Jews with greater respect than

He was who ought to have been honoured as the true Temple of God—the

Word, and the Wisdom, and the Truth. And who can say that “Jesus

attempted to make His escape by disgracefully concealing Himself?” Let

any one point to an act deserving to be called disgraceful. And when he

adds, “he was taken prisoner,” I would say that, if to be taken prisoner

implies an act done against one’s will, then Jesus was not taken

prisoner; for at the fitting time He did not prevent Himself falling

into the hands of men, as the Lamb of God, that He might take away the

sin of the world. For, knowing all things that were to come upon Him, He

went forth, and said to them, “Whom seek ye?” and they answered, “Jesus

of Nazareth;” and He said unto them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who

betrayed Him, was standing with them. When, therefore, He had said to

them, “I am He,” they went backwards and fell to the ground. Again He

asked them, “Whom seek ye?” and they said again, “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Jesus said to them, “I told you I am He; if then ye seek me, let these

go away.”[70] Nay, even to him who wished to help Him, and who smote the

high priest’s servant, and cut off his ear, He said: “Put up thy sword

into its sheath: for all they who draw the sword shall perish by the

sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot even now pray to my Father, and He

will presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then

should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”[71] And if

any one imagines these statements to be inventions of the writers of the

Gospels, why should not those statements rather be regarded as

inventions which proceeded from a spirit of hatred and hostility against

Jesus and the Christians? and these the truth, which proceed from those

who manifest the sincerity of their feelings towards Jesus, by enduring

everything, whatever it may be, for the sake of His words? For the

reception by the disciples of such power of endurance and resolution

continued even to death, with a disposition of mind that would not

invent regarding their Teacher what was not true, is a very evident

proof to all candid judges that they were fully persuaded of the truth

of what they wrote, seeing they submitted to trials so numerous and so

severe, for the sake of Him whom they believed to be the Son of God.

Footnote 69:

Matt. xxvi. 61.

Footnote 70:

John xviii. 4 sqq.

Footnote 71:

Matt. xxvi. 52-54.

Chapter XI.

In the next place, that He was betrayed by those whom He called His

disciples, is a circumstance which the Jew of Celsus learned from the

Gospels; calling the one Judas, however, “many disciples,” that he might

seem to add force to the accusation. Nor did he trouble himself to take

note of all that is related concerning Judas; how this Judas, having

come to entertain opposite and conflicting opinions regarding his

Master, neither opposed Him with his whole soul, nor yet with his whole

soul preserved the respect due by a pupil to his teacher. For he that

betrayed Him gave to the multitude that came to apprehend Jesus, a sign,

saying, “Whomsoever I shall kiss, it is he; seize ye him,”—retaining

still some element of respect for his Master: for unless he had done so,

he would have betrayed Him, even publicly, without any pretence of

affection. This circumstance, therefore, will satisfy all with regard to

the purpose of Judas, that along with his covetous disposition, and his

wicked design to betray his Master, he had still a feeling of a mixed

character in his mind, produced in him by the words of Jesus, which had

the appearance (so to speak) of some remnant of good. For it is related

that, “when Judas, who betrayed Him, knew that He was condemned, he

repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the high

priest and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the

innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to

that;”[72]—and that, having thrown the money down in the temple, he

departed, and went and hanged himself. But if this covetous Judas, who

also stole the money placed in the bag for the relief of the poor,

repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief

priests and elders, it is clear that the instructions of Jesus had been

able to produce some feeling of repentance in his mind, and were not

altogether despised and loathed by this traitor. Nay, the declaration,

“I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood,” was a

public acknowledgment of his crime. Observe, also, how exceedingly

passionate[73] was the sorrow for his sins that proceeded from that

repentance, and which would not suffer him any longer to live; and how,

after he had cast the money down in the temple, he withdrew, and went

away and hanged himself: for he passed sentence upon himself, showing

what a power the teaching of Jesus had over this sinner Judas, this

thief and traitor, who could not always treat with contempt what he had

learned from Jesus. Will Celsus and his friends now say that those

proofs which show that the apostasy of Judas was not a complete

apostasy, even after his attempts against his Master, are inventions,

and that this alone is true, viz. that one of His disciples betrayed

Him; and will they add to the scriptural account that he betrayed Him

also with his whole heart? To act in this spirit of hostility with the

same writings, both as to what we are to believe and what we are not to

believe, is absurd.[74] And if we must make a statement regarding Judas

which may overwhelm our opponents with shame, we would say that, in the

book of Psalms, the whole of the 108th contains a prophecy about Judas,

the beginning of which is this: “O God, hold not Thy peace before my

praise; for the mouth of the sinner, and the mouth of the crafty man,

are opened against me.”[75] And it is predicted in this psalm, both that

Judas separated himself from the number of the apostles on account of

his sins, and that another was selected in his place; and this is shown

by the words: “And his bishopric let another take.”[76] But suppose now

that He had been betrayed by some one of His disciples, who was

possessed by a worse spirit than Judas, and who had completely poured

out, as it were, all the words which he had heard from Jesus, what would

this contribute to an accusation against Jesus or the Christian

religion? And how will this demonstrate its doctrine to be false? We

have replied in the preceding chapter to the statements which follow

this, showing that Jesus was not taken prisoner when attempting to flee,

but that He gave Himself up voluntarily for the sake of us all. Whence

it follows, that even if He were bound, He was bound agreeably to His

own will; thus teaching us the lesson that we should undertake similar

things for the sake of religion in no spirit of unwillingness.

Footnote 72:

Matt. xxvii. 3-5.

Footnote 73:

διάπυρος καὶ σφοδρά.

Footnote 74:

ἀπίθανον.

Footnote 75:

Ps. cix. 1, 2.

Footnote 76:

Ps. cix. 8.

Chapter XII.

And the following appear to me to be childish assertions, viz. that “no

good general and leader of great multitudes was ever betrayed; nor even

a wicked captain of robbers and commander of very wicked men, who seemed

to be of any use to his associates; but Jesus, having been betrayed by

his subordinates, neither governed like a good general, nor, after

deceiving his disciples, produced in the minds of the victims of his

deceit that feeling of good-will which, so to speak, would be manifested

towards a brigand chief.” Now one might find many accounts of generals

who were betrayed by their own soldiers, and of robber chiefs who were

captured through the instrumentality of those who did not keep their

bargains with them. But grant that no general or robber chief was ever

betrayed, what does that contribute to the establishment of the fact as

a charge against Jesus, that one of His disciples became His betrayer?

And since Celsus makes an ostentatious exhibition of philosophy, I would

ask of him, If, then, it was a charge against Plato, that Aristotle,

after being his pupil for twenty years, went away and assailed his

doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and styled the ideas of Plato

the merest trifling?[77] And if I were still in doubt, I would continue

thus: Was Plato no longer mighty in dialectics, nor able to defend his

views, after Aristotle had taken his departure; and, on that account,

are the opinions of Plato false? Or may it not be, that while Plato is

true, as the pupils of his philosophy would maintain, Aristotle was

guilty of wickedness and ingratitude towards his teacher? Nay,

Chrysippus also, in many places of his writings, appears to assail

Cleanthes, introducing novel opinions opposed to his views, although the

latter had been his teacher when he was a young man, and began the study

of philosophy. Aristotle, indeed, is said to have been Plato’s pupil for

twenty years, and no inconsiderable period was spent by Chrysippus in

the school of Cleanthes; while Judas did not remain so much as three

years with Jesus. But from the narratives of the lives of philosophers

we might take many instances similar to those on which Celsus founds a

charge against Jesus on account of Judas. Even the Pythagoreans erected

cenotaphs[78] to those who, after betaking themselves to philosophy,

fell back again into their ignorant mode of life; and yet neither was

Pythagoras nor his followers, on that account, weak in argument and

demonstration.

Footnote 77:

τερετίσματα.

Footnote 78:

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

Chapter XIII.

This Jew of Celsus continues, after the above, in the following fashion:

“Although he could state many things regarding the events of the life of

Jesus which are true, and not like those which are recorded by the

disciples, he willingly omits them.” What, then, are those true

statements, unlike the accounts in the Gospels, which the Jew of Celsus

passes by without mention? Or is he only employing what appears to be a

figure of speech,[79] in pretending to have something to say, while in

reality he had nothing to produce beyond the Gospel narrative which

could impress the hearer with a feeling of its truth, and furnish a

clear ground of accusation against Jesus and His doctrine? And he

charges the disciples with having invented the statement that Jesus

foreknew and foretold all that happened to Him; but the truth of this

statement we shall establish, although Celsus may not like it, by means

of many other predictions uttered by the Saviour, in which He foretold

what would befall the Christians in after generations. And who is there

who would not be astonished at this prediction: “Ye shall be brought

before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and

the Gentiles;”[80] and at any others which He may have delivered

respecting the future persecution of His disciples? For what system of

opinions ever existed among men on account of which others are punished,

so that any one of the accusers of Jesus could say that, foreseeing the

impiety or falsity of his opinions to be the ground of an accusation

against them, he thought that this would redound to his credit, that he

had so predicted regarding it long before? Now if any deserve to be

brought, on account of their opinions, before governors and kings, what

others are they, save the Epicureans, who altogether deny the existence

of providence? And also the Peripatetics, who say that prayers are of no

avail, and sacrifices offered as to the Divinity? But some one will say

that the Samaritans suffer persecution because of their religion. In

answer to whom we shall state that the Sicarians,[81] on account of the

practice of circumcision, as mutilating themselves contrary to the

established laws and the customs permitted to the Jews alone, are put to

death. And you never hear a judge inquiring whether a Sicarian who

strives to live according to this established religion of his will be

released from punishment if he apostatizes, but will be led away to

death if he continues firm; for the evidence of the circumcision is

sufficient to ensure the death of him who has undergone it. But

Christians alone, according to the prediction of their Saviour, “Ye

shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake,” are urged up

to their last breath by their judges to deny Christianity, and to

sacrifice according to the public customs; and after the oath of

abjuration, to return to their homes, and to live in safety. And observe

whether it is not with great authority that this declaration is uttered:

“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess

also before my Father who is in heaven. And whosoever shall deny me

before men,”[82] etc. And go back with me in thought to Jesus when He

uttered these words, and see His predictions not yet accomplished.

Perhaps you will say, in a spirit of incredulity, that he is talking

folly, and speaking to no purpose, for his words will have no

fulfilment; or, being in doubt about assenting to his words, you will

say, that if these predictions be fulfilled, and the doctrine of Jesus

be established, so that governors and kings think of destroying those

who acknowledge Jesus, then we shall believe that he utters these

prophecies as one who has received great power from God to implant this

doctrine among the human race, and as believing that it will prevail.

And who will not be filled with wonder, when he goes back in thought to

Him who then taught and said, “This gospel shall be preached throughout

the whole world, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles,” and

beholds, agreeably to His words, the gospel of Jesus Christ preached in

the whole world under heaven to Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish

alike? For the word, spoken with power, has gained the mastery over men

of all sorts of nature, and it is impossible to see any race of men

which has escaped accepting the teaching of Jesus. But let this Jew of

Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to Him,

consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish

worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the

hand of the Romans. For they will not maintain that the acquaintances

and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the

Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without

the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works. Now in these it is

recorded, that “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed about with armies,

then shall ye know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”[83] But at that

time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing

and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted

till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem,

on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus

who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on

account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Footnote 79:

δοκούσῃ δεινότητι ῥητορικῇ.

Footnote 80:

Matt. x. 18.

Footnote 81:

Modestinus, lib. vi. _Regularum, ad legem Corneliam de Sicariis_:

“Circumcidere filios suos Judæis tantum rescripto divi Pii

permittitur: in non ejusdem religionis qui hoc fecerit, castrantis

pœna irrogatur.”

Footnote 82:

Matt. x. 18.

Footnote 83:

Matt. xxiv. 14.

Chapter XIV.

Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what would

befall Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did in the

case of the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by means of

sorcery; for he might say that many persons by means of divination,

either by auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or nativities, have come

to the knowledge of what was to happen. But this concession he would not

make, as being too great a one; and although he somehow granted that

Jesus worked miracles, he thought to weaken the force of this by the

charge of sorcery. Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I

think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of

future events (although falling into confusion about some things which

refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that

the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these

very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will,

expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our

system were not devoid of divine power.

Chapter XV.

Celsus continues: “The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on

which to rely, devised the fiction that he foreknew everything before it

happened;” not observing, or not wishing to observe, the love of truth

which actuated the writers, who acknowledged that Jesus had told His

disciples beforehand, “All ye shall be offended because of me this

night,”—a statement which was fulfilled by their all being offended; and

that He predicted to Peter, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me

thrice,” which was followed by Peter’s threefold denial. Now if they had

not been lovers of truth, but, as Celsus supposes, inventors of

fictions, they would not have represented Peter as denying, nor His

disciples as being offended. For although these events actually

happened, who could have proved that they turned out in that manner? And

yet, according to all probability, these were matters which ought to

have been passed over in silence by men who wished to teach the readers

of the Gospels to despise death for the sake of confessing Christianity.

But now, seeing that the word, by its power, will gain the mastery over

men, they related those facts which they have done, and which, I know

not how, were neither to do any harm to their readers, nor to afford any

pretext for denial.

Chapter XVI.

Exceedingly weak is his assertion, that “the disciples of Jesus wrote

such accounts regarding him, by way of extenuating the charges that told

against him: as if,” he says, “any one were to say that a certain person

was a just man, and yet were to show that he was guilty of injustice; or

that he was pious, and yet had committed murder; or that he was

immortal, and yet was dead; subjoining to all these statements the

remark that he had foretold all these things.” Now his illustrations are

at once seen to be inappropriate; for there is no absurdity in Him who

had resolved that He would become a living pattern to men, as to the

manner in which they were to regulate their lives, showing also how they

ought to die for the sake of their religion, apart altogether from the

fact that His death on behalf of men was a benefit to the whole world,

as we proved in the preceding book. He imagines, moreover, that the

whole of the confession of the Saviour’s sufferings confirms his

objection instead of weakening it. For he is not acquainted either with

the philosophical remarks of Paul,[84] or the statements of the

prophets, on this subject. And it escaped him that certain heretics have

declared that Jesus underwent His sufferings in appearance, not in

reality. For had he known, he would not have said: “For ye do not even

allege this, that he seemed to wicked men to suffer this punishment,

though not undergoing it in reality; but, on the contrary, ye

acknowledge that he openly suffered.” But we do not view His sufferings

as having been merely in appearance, in order that His resurrection also

may not be a false, but a real event. For he who really died, actually

arose, if he did arise; whereas he who appeared only to have died, did

not in reality arise. But since the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a

subject of mockery to unbelievers, we shall quote the words of

Plato,[85] that Herus the son of Armenius rose from the funeral pile

twelve days after he had been laid upon it, and gave an account of what

he had seen in Hades; and as we are replying to unbelievers, it will not

be altogether useless to refer in this place to what Heraclides[86]

relates respecting the woman who was deprived of life. And many persons

are recorded to have risen from their tombs, not only on the day of

their burial, but also on the day following. What wonder is it, then, if

in the case of one who performed many marvellous things, both beyond the

power of man and with such fulness of evidence, that he who could not

deny their performance, endeavoured to calumniate them by comparing them

to acts of sorcery, should have manifested also in His death some

greater display of divine power, so that His soul, if it pleased, might

leave its body, and having performed certain offices out of it, might

return again at pleasure? And such a declaration is Jesus said to have

made in the Gospel of John, when He said: “No man taketh my life from

me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have

power to take it again.”[87] And perhaps it was on this account that He

hastened His departure from the body, that He might preserve it, and

that His legs might not be broken, as were those of the robbers who were

crucified with Him. “For the soldiers broke the legs of the first, and

of the other who was crucified with Him; but when they came to Jesus,

and saw that He was dead, they brake not His legs.”[88] We have

accordingly answered the question, “How is it credible that Jesus could

have predicted these things?” And with respect to this, “How could the

dead man be immortal?” let him who wishes to understand know, that it is

not the dead man who is immortal, but He who rose from the dead. So far,

indeed, was the dead man from being immortal, that even the Jesus before

His decease—the compound being, who was to suffer death—was not

immortal.[89] For no one is immortal who is destined to die; but he is

immortal when he shall no longer be subject to death. But “Christ, being

raised from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over

Him;”[90] although those may be unwilling to admit this who cannot

understand how such things should be said.

Footnote 84:

ὅσα περὶ τούτου καὶ παρὰ τῷ Παύλῳ πεφιλοσόφηται.

Footnote 85:

Cf. Plato, _de Rep._ x.

Footnote 86:

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

Footnote 87:

John x. 18.

Footnote 88:

John xix. 52.

Footnote 89:

Οὐ μόνον οὖν οὐχ ὁ νεκρὸς ἀθάνατος, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ νεκροῦ Ἰησοῦς

ὁ σύνθετος ἀθάνατος ἦν, ὅς γε ἔμελλε τεθνήξεσθαι.

Footnote 90:

Rom. vi. 9.

Chapter XVII.

Extremely foolish also is his remark, “What God, or spirit, or prudent

man would not, on foreseeing that such events were to befall him, avoid

them if he could; whereas he threw himself headlong into those things

which he knew beforehand were to happen?” And yet Socrates knew that he

would die after drinking the hemlock, and it was in his power, if he had

allowed himself to be persuaded by Crito, by escaping from prison, to

avoid these calamities; but nevertheless he decided, as it appeared to

him consistent with right reason, that it was better for him to die as

became a philosopher, than to retain his life in a manner unbecoming

one. Leonidas also, the Lacedemonian general, knowing that he was on the

point of dying with his followers at Thermopylæ, did not make any effort

to preserve his life by disgraceful means, but said to his companions,

“Let us go to breakfast, as we shall sup in Hades.” And those who are

interested in collecting stories of this kind, will find numbers of

them. Now, where is the wonder if Jesus, knowing all things that were to

happen, did not avoid them, but encountered what He foreknew; when Paul,

His own disciple, having heard what would befall him when he went up to

Jerusalem, proceeded to face the danger, reproaching those who were

weeping around him, and endeavouring to prevent him from going up to

Jerusalem? Many also of our contemporaries, knowing well that if they

made a confession of Christianity they would be put to death, but that

if they denied it they would be liberated, and their property restored,

despised life, and voluntarily selected death for the sake of their

religion.

Chapter XVIII.

After this the Jew makes another silly remark, saying, “How is it that,

if Jesus pointed out beforehand both the traitor and the perjurer, they

did not fear him as a God, and cease, the one from his intended treason,

and the other from his perjury?” Here the learned Celsus did not see the

contradiction in his statement: for if Jesus foreknew events as a God,

then it was impossible for His foreknowledge to prove untrue; and

therefore it was impossible for him who was known to Him as going to

betray Him not to execute his purpose, nor for him who was rebuked as

going to deny Him not to have been guilty of that crime. For if it had

been possible for the one to abstain from the act of betrayal, and the

other from that of denial, as having been warned of the consequences of

these actions beforehand, then His words were no longer true, who

predicted that the one would betray Him and the other deny Him. For if

He had foreknowledge of the traitor, He knew the wickedness in which the

treason originated, and this wickedness was by no means taken away by

the foreknowledge. And, again, if He had ascertained that one would deny

Him, He made that prediction from seeing the weakness out of which that

act of denial would arise, and yet this weakness was not to be taken

away thus at once[91] by the foreknowledge. But whence he derived the

statement, “that these persons betrayed and denied him without

manifesting any concern about him,” I know not; for it was proved, with

respect to the traitor, that it is false to say that he betrayed his

master without an exhibition of anxiety regarding Him. And this was

shown to be equally true of him who denied Him; for he went out, after

the denial, and wept bitterly.

Footnote 91:

οὕτως ἀθρόως.

Chapter XIX.

Superficial also is his objection, that “it is always the case when a

man against whom a plot is formed, and who comes to the knowledge of it,

makes known to the conspirators that he is acquainted with their design,

that the latter are turned from their purpose, and keep upon their

guard.” For many have continued to plot even against those who were

acquainted with their plans. And then, as if bringing his argument to a

conclusion, he says: “Not because these things were predicted did they

come to pass, for that is impossible; but since they have come to pass,

their being predicted is shown to be a falsehood: for it is altogether

impossible that those who heard beforehand of the discovery of their

designs, should carry out their plans of betrayal and denial!” But if

his premisses are overthrown, then his conclusion also falls to the

ground, viz. “that we are not to believe, because these things were

predicted, that they have come to pass.” Now we maintain that they not

only came to pass as being possible, but also that, because they came to

pass, the fact of their being predicted is shown to be true; for the

truth regarding future events is judged of by results. It is false,

therefore, as asserted by him, that the prediction of these events is

proved to be untrue; and it is to no purpose that he says, “It is

altogether impossible for those who heard beforehand that their designs

were discovered, to carry out their plans of betrayal and denial.”

Chapter XX.

Let us see how he continues after this: “These events,” he says, “he

predicted as being a God, and the prediction must by all means come to

pass. God, therefore, who above all others ought to do good to men, and

especially to those of his own household, led on his own disciples and

prophets, with whom he was in the habit of eating and drinking, to such

a degree of wickedness, that they became impious and unholy men. Now, of

a truth, he who shared a man’s table would not be guilty of conspiring

against him; but after banqueting with God, he became a conspirator.

And, what is still more absurd, God himself plotted against the members

of his own table, by converting them into traitors and villains!” Now,

since you wish me to answer even those charges of Celsus which seem to

me frivolous,[92] the following is our reply to such statements. Celsus

imagines that an event, predicted through foreknowledge, comes to pass

because it was predicted; but we do not grant this, maintaining that he

who foretold it was not the cause of its happening, because he foretold

it would happen; but the future event itself, which would have taken

place though not predicted, afforded the occasion to him, who was

endowed with foreknowledge, of foretelling its occurrence. Now,

certainly this result is present to the foreknowledge of him who

predicts an event, when it is possible that it may or may not happen,

viz. that one or other of these things will take place. For we do not

assert that he who foreknows an event, by secretly taking away the

possibility of its happening or not, makes any such declaration as this:

“This shall infallibly happen, and it is impossible that it can be

otherwise.” And this remark applies to all the foreknowledge of events

dependent upon ourselves, whether contained in the sacred Scriptures or

in the histories of the Greeks. Now, what is called by logicians an

“idle argument,”[93] which is a sophism, will be no sophism as far as

Celsus can help, but according to sound reasoning it is a sophism. And

that this may be seen, I shall take from the Scriptures the predictions

regarding Judas, or the foreknowledge of our Saviour regarding him as

the traitor; and from the Greek histories the oracle that was given to

Laius, conceding for the present its truth, since it does not affect the

argument. Now, in Ps. cix., Judas is spoken of by the mouth of the

Saviour, in words beginning thus: “Hold not Thy peace, O God of my

praise; for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are

opened against me.” Now, if you carefully observe the contents of the

psalm, you will find that, as it was foreknown that he would betray the

Saviour, so also was he considered to be himself the cause of the

betrayal, and deserving, on account of his wickedness, of the

imprecations contained in the prophecy. For let him suffer these things,

“because,” says the psalmist, “he remembered not to show mercy, but

persecuted the poor and needy man.” Wherefore it was possible for him to

show mercy, and not to persecute him whom he did persecute. But although

he might have done these things, he did not do them, but carried out the

act of treason, so as to merit the curses pronounced against him in the

prophecy.

And in answer to the Greeks we shall quote the following oracular

response to Laius, as recorded by the tragic poet, either in the exact

words of the oracle or in equivalent terms. Future events are thus made

known to him by the oracle: “Do not try to beget children against the

will of the gods. For if you beget a son, your son shall murder you; and

all your household shall wade in blood.”[94] Now from this it is clear

that it was within the power of Laius not to try to beget children, for

the oracle would not have commanded an impossibility; and it was also in

his power to do the opposite, so that neither of these courses was

compulsory. And the consequence of his not guarding against the

begetting of children was, that he suffered from so doing the calamities

described in the tragedies relating to Œdipus and Jocasta and their

sons. Now that which is called the “idle argument,” being a quibble, is

such as might be applied, say in the case of a sick man, with the view

of sophistically preventing him from employing a physician to promote

his recovery; and it is something like this: “If it is decreed that you

should recover from your disease, you will recover whether you call in a

physician or not; but if it is decreed that you should not recover, you

will not recover whether you call in a physician or no. But it is

certainly decreed either that you should recover, or that you should not

recover; and therefore it is in vain that you call in a physician.” Now

with this argument the following may be wittily compared: “If it is

decreed that you should beget children, you will beget them, whether you

have intercourse with a woman or not. But if it is decreed that you

should not beget children, you will not do so, whether you have

intercourse with a woman or no. Now, certainly, it is decreed either

that you should beget children or not; therefore it is in vain that you

have intercourse with a woman.” For, as in the latter instance,

intercourse with a woman is not employed in vain, seeing it is an utter

impossibility for him who does not use it to beget children; so, in the

former, if recovery from disease is to be accomplished by means of the

healing art, of necessity the physician is summoned, and it is therefore

false to say that “in vain do you call in a physician.” We have brought

forward all these illustrations on account of the assertion of this

learned Celsus, that “being a God he predicted these things, and the

predictions must _by all means_ come to pass.” Now, if by “_by all

means_” he means “_necessarily_,” we cannot admit this. For it was quite

possible, also, that they might _not_ come to pass. But if he uses “_by

all means_” in the sense of “_simple futurity_,”[95] which nothing

hinders from being true (although it was possible that they might not

happen), he does not at all touch my argument; nor did it follow, from

Jesus having predicted the acts of the traitor or the perjurer, that it

was the same thing with His being the cause of such impious and unholy

proceedings. For He who was amongst us, and knew what was in man, seeing

his evil disposition, and foreseeing what he would attempt from his

spirit of covetousness, and from his want of stable ideas of duty

towards his Master, along with many other declarations, gave utterance

to this also: “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same

shall betray me.”[96]

Footnote 92:

εὐτελέσι.

Footnote 93:

ἀργὸς λόγος.

Footnote 94:

Euripid. _Phœnissæ_, 18-20.

Footnote 95:

ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔσται.

Footnote 96:

Matt. xxvi. 23.

Chapter XXI.

Observe also the superficiality and manifest falsity of such a statement

of Celsus, when he asserts “that he who was partaker of a man’s table

would not conspire against him; and if he would not conspire against a

man, much less would he plot against a God after banqueting with him.”

For who does not know that many persons, after partaking of the salt on

the table,[97] have entered into a conspiracy against their

entertainers? The whole of Greek and barbarian history is full of such

instances. And the Iambic poet of Paros,[98] when upbraiding Lycambes

with having violated covenants confirmed by the salt of the table, says

to him:

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

table.”

And they who are interested in historical learning, and who give

themselves wholly to it, to the neglect of other branches of knowledge

more necessary for the conduct of life,[99] can quote numerous

instances, showing that they who shared in the hospitality of others

entered into conspiracies against them.

Footnote 97:

ἁλῶν καὶ τραπέζης.

Footnote 98:

Archilochus.

Footnote 99:

Guietus would expunge these words as “inept.”

Chapter XXII.

He adds to this, as if he had brought together an argument with

conclusive demonstrations and consequences, the following: “And, which

is still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his

table, by converting them into traitors and impious men.” But how Jesus

could either conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or impious

men, it would be impossible for him to prove, save by means of such a

deduction as any one could refute with the greatest ease.

Chapter XXIII.

He continues in this strain: “If he had determined upon these things,

and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest

that, being a God, and submitting voluntarily, those things that were

done agreeably to his own decision were neither painful nor

distressing.” But he did not observe that here he was at once

contradicting himself. For if he granted that He was chastised because

He had determined upon these things, and had submitted Himself to His

Father, it is clear that He actually suffered punishment, and it was

impossible that what was inflicted on Him by His chastisers should not

be painful, because pain is an involuntary thing. But if, because He was

willing to suffer, His inflictions were neither painful nor distressing,

how did He grant that “He was chastised?” He did not perceive that when

Jesus had once, by His birth, assumed a body, He assumed one which was

capable both of suffering pains, and those distresses incidental to

humanity, if we are to understand by distresses what no one voluntarily

chooses. Since, therefore, He voluntarily assumed a body, not wholly of

a different nature from that of human flesh, so along with His body He

assumed also its sufferings and distresses, which it was not in His

power to avoid enduring, it being in the power of those who inflicted

them to send upon Him things distressing and painful. And in the

preceding pages we have already shown, that He would not have come into

the hands of men had He not so willed. But He did come, because He was

willing to come, and because it was manifest beforehand that His dying

upon behalf of men would be of advantage to the whole human race.

Chapter XXIV.

After this, wishing to prove that the occurrences which befell Him were

painful and distressing, and that it was impossible for Him, had He

wished, to render them otherwise, he proceeds: “Why does he mourn, and

lament, and pray to escape the fear of death, expressing himself in

terms like these: ‘O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from

me?’”[100] Now in these words observe the malignity of Celsus, how not

accepting the love of truth which actuates the writers of the Gospels

(who might have passed over in silence those points which, as Celsus

thinks, are censurable, but who did not omit them for many reasons,

which any one, in expounding the Gospel, can give in their proper

place), he brings an accusation against the Gospel statement, grossly

exaggerating the facts, and quoting what is not written in the Gospels,

seeing it is nowhere found that Jesus lamented. And he changes the words

in the expression, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from

me,” and does not give what follows immediately after, which manifests

at once the ready obedience of Jesus to His Father, and His greatness of

mind, and which runs thus: “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou

wilt.”[101] Nay, even the cheerful obedience of Jesus to the will of His

Father in those things which He was condemned to suffer, exhibited in

the declaration, “If this cup cannot pass from me except I drink it, Thy

will be done,” he pretends not to have observed, acting here like those

wicked individuals who listen to the Holy Scriptures in a malignant

spirit, and “who talk wickedness with lofty head.” For they appear to

have heard the declaration, “I kill,”[102] and they often make it to us

a subject of reproach; but the words, “I will make alive,” they do not

remember,—the whole sentence showing that those who live amid public

wickedness, and who work wickedly, are put to death by God, and that a

better life is infused into them instead, even one which God will give

to those who have died to sin. And so also these men have heard the

words, “I will smite;” but they do not see these, “and I will heal,”

which are like the words of a physician, who cuts bodies asunder, and

inflicts severe wounds, in order to extract from them substances that

are injurious and prejudicial to health, and who does not terminate his

work with pains and lacerations, but by his treatment restores the body

to that state of soundness which he has in view. Moreover, they have not

heard the whole of the announcement, “For He maketh sore, and again

bindeth up;” but only this part, “He maketh sore.” So in like manner

acts this Jew of Celsus, who quotes the words, “O Father, would that

this cup might pass from me;” but who does not add what follows, and

which exhibits the firmness of Jesus, and His preparedness for

suffering. But these matters, which afford great room for explanation

from the wisdom of God, and which may reasonably be pondered over[103]

by those whom Paul calls “perfect” when he said, “We speak wisdom among

them who are perfect,”[104] we pass by for the present, and shall speak

for a little of those matters which are useful for our present purpose.

Footnote 100:

Matt. xxvi. 39.

Footnote 101:

Matt. xxvi. 39.

Footnote 102:

Deut. xxxii. 39.

Footnote 103:

καὶ ταῦτα δὲ, πολλὴν ἔχοντα διήγησιν ἀπὸ σοφίας Θεοῦ οἷς ὁ Παῦλος

ὠνόμασε τελείοις εὐλόγως παραδοθησομένην.

Footnote 104:

1 Cor. ii. 6.

Chapter XXV.

We have mentioned in the preceding pages that there are some of the

declarations of Jesus which refer to that Being in Him which was the

“first-born of every creature,” such as, “I am the way, and the truth,

and the life,” and such like; and others, again, which belong to that in

Him which is understood to be man, such as, “But now ye seek to kill me,

a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of the

Father.”[105] And here, accordingly, he describes the element of

weakness belonging to human flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which

existed in His humanity: the element of weakness in the expression,

“Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;” the readiness of

the spirit in this, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” And

since it is proper to observe the order of our quotations, observe that,

in the first place, there is mentioned only the single instance, as one

would say, indicating the weakness of the flesh; and afterwards those

other instances, greater in number, manifesting the willingness of the

spirit. For the expression, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup

pass from me,” is only one: whereas more numerous are those others,

viz., “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt;” and, “O my Father, if this cup

cannot pass from me except I drink it, Thy will be done.” It is to be

noted also, that the words are not, “let this cup depart from me;” but

that the whole expression is marked by a tone of piety and reverence,

“Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” I know, indeed,

that there is another explanation of this passage to the following

effect:—The Saviour, foreseeing the sufferings which the Jewish people

and the city of Jerusalem were to undergo in requital of the wicked

deeds which the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon Him, from no other

motive than that of the purest philanthropy towards them, and from a

desire that they might escape the impending calamities, gave utterance

to the prayer, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”

It is as if He had said, “Because of my drinking this cup of punishment,

the whole nation will be forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be possible,

that this cup may pass from me, in order that Thy portion, which was

guilty of such crimes against me, may not be altogether deserted by

Thee.” But if, as Celsus would allege, “nothing at that time was done to

Jesus which was either painful or distressing,” how could men afterwards

quote the example of Jesus as enduring sufferings for the sake of

religion, if He did _not_ suffer what are human sufferings, but only had

the _appearance_ of so doing?

Footnote 105:

John viii. 40.

Chapter XXVI.

This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having

invented these statements, saying to them: “Even although guilty of

falsehood, ye have not been able to give a colour of credibility to your

inventions.” In answer to which we have to say, that there was an easy

method of concealing these occurrences,—that, viz., of not recording

them at all. For if the Gospels had not contained the accounts of these

things, who could have reproached us with Jesus having spoken such words

during His stay upon the earth? Celsus, indeed, did not see that it was

an inconsistency for the same persons both to be deceived regarding

Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the subject of prophecy, and to

invent fictions about Him, knowing manifestly that these statements were

false. Of a truth, therefore, they were not guilty of inventing

untruths, but such were their real impressions, and they recorded them

truly; or else they were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did not

entertain these views, and were not deceived when they acknowledged Him

to be God.

Chapter XXVII.

After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like

persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves,

have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold,

and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they

might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have

altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of

Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation

is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared

so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation

against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or

Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false

opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are

some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies

opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.

Chapter XXVIII.

And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of reproach that

Christians should make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of

Christ’s life, we have to say, in addition to what we have already

advanced upon this head, that it became him to spare individuals, as he

says, and to expound the prophecies themselves; and after admitting the

probability of the Christian interpretation of them, to show how the use

which they make of them may be overturned.[106] For in this way he would

not appear hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds,

and particularly when he asserts that the “prophecies agree with ten

thousand other things more credibly than with Jesus.” And he ought to

have carefully met this powerful argument of the Christians, as being

the strongest which they adduce, and to have demonstrated with regard to

each particular prophecy, that it can apply to other events with greater

probability than to Jesus. He did not, however, perceive that this was a

plausible argument to be advanced against the Christians only by one who

was an opponent of the prophetic writings; but Celsus has here put in

the mouth of a Jew an objection which a Jew would not have made. For a

Jew will not admit that the prophecies may be applied to countless other

things with greater probability than to Jesus; but he will endeavour,

after giving what appears to him the meaning of each, to oppose the

Christian interpretation, not indeed by any means adducing convincing

reasons, but only attempting to do so.

Footnote 106:

The original here is probably corrupt: Ὅτι ἐχρῆν αὐτὸν (ὥς φησιν)

φειδόμενον ἀνθρώπων αὐτὰς ἐκθέσθαι τὰς προφητείας, καὶ συναγορεύσαντα

ταῖς πιθανότησιν αὐτῶν, τὴν φαινομένην αὐτῶν ἀνατροπὴν τῆς χρήσεως τῶν

προφητικῶν ἐκθέσθαι. For φειδόμενον Boherellus would read κηδόμενον,

and τὴν φαινομένην αὐτῷ ἀνατροπήν.

Chapter XXIX.

In the preceding pages we have already spoken of this point, viz. the

prediction that there were to be two advents of Christ to the human

race, so that it is not necessary for us to reply to the objection,

supposed to be urged by a Jew, that “the prophets declare the coming one

to be a mighty potentate, Lord of all nations and armies.” But it is in

the spirit of a Jew, I think, and in keeping with their bitter

animosity, and baseless and even improbable calumnies against Jesus,

that he adds: “Nor did the prophets predict such a pestilence.”[107] For

neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor any other, can bring any argument to prove

that a pestilence converts men from the practice of evil to a life which

is according to nature, and distinguished by temperance and other

virtues.

Footnote 107:

ὄλεθρον.

Chapter XXX.

This objection also is cast in our teeth by Celsus: “From such signs and

misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove him to

be God, and the Son of God.” Now it was his duty to enumerate the

alleged misinterpretations, and to prove them to be such, and to show by

reasoning the meanness of the evidence, in order that the Christian, if

any of his objections should seem to be plausible, might be able to

answer and confute his arguments. What he said, however, regarding

Jesus, did indeed come to pass, because He was a mighty potentate,

although Celsus refuses to see that it so happened, notwithstanding that

the clearest evidence proves it true of Jesus. “For as the sun,” he

says, “which enlightens all other objects, first makes himself visible,

so ought the Son of God to have done.” We would say in reply, that so He

did; for righteousness has arisen in His days, and there is abundance of

peace, which took its commencement at His birth, God preparing the

nations for His teaching, that they might be under one prince, the king

of the Romans, and that it might not, owing to the want of union among

the nations, caused by the existence of many kingdoms, be more difficult

for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the task enjoined upon them by

their Master, when He said, “Go and teach all nations.” Moreover it is

certain that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus, who, so to speak,

fused together into one monarchy the many populations of the earth. Now

the existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to the spread

of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world; not only for the

reasons mentioned, but also on account of the necessity of men

everywhere engaging in war, and fighting on behalf of their native

country, which was the case before the times of Augustus, and in periods

still more remote, when necessity arose, as when the Peloponnesians and

Athenians warred against each other, and other nations in like manner.

How, then, was it possible for the gospel doctrine of peace, which does

not permit men to take vengeance even upon enemies, to prevail

throughout the world, unless at the advent of Jesus a milder spirit had

been everywhere introduced into the conduct of things?

Chapter XXXI.

He next charges the Christians with being “guilty of sophistical

reasoning, in saying that the Son of God is the Logos Himself.” And he

thinks that he strengthens the accusation, because “when we declare the

Logos to be the Son of God, we do not present to view a pure and holy

Logos, but a most degraded man, who was punished by scourging and

crucifixion.” Now, on this head we have briefly replied to the charges

of Celsus in the preceding pages, where Christ was shown to be the

first-born of all creation, who assumed a body and a human soul; and

that God gave commandment respecting the creation of such mighty things

in the world, and they were created; and that He who received the

command was God the Logos. And seeing it is a Jew who makes these

statements in the work of Celsus, it will not be out of place to quote

the declaration, “He sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them

from their destruction,”[108]—a passage of which we spoke a little ago.

Now, although I have conferred with many Jews who professed to be

learned men, I never heard any one expressing his approval of the

statement that the Logos is the Son of God, as Celsus declares they do,

in putting into the mouth of the Jew such a declaration as this: “If

your Logos is the Son of God, we also give our assent to the same.”

Footnote 108:

Ps. cvi. 20.

Chapter XXXII.

We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant

man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our

former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we

ourselves should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding

fault with our Lord’s genealogy, there are certain points which occasion

some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy

between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their

correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is

truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters

relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful

manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the

“framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be

descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews.” And he

thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that “the

carpenter’s wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been

of such illustrious descent.” But what has this to do with the question?

Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does that affect

the result? Suppose that she _were_ ignorant, how could her ignorance

prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could not derive

her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that the poor must

always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that kings are

always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon such an

argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own days,

some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of wealth and

distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung from

persons of no reputation.

Chapter XXXIII.

“But,” continues Celsus, “what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a

God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous

conclusion what was designed against him?” Now to this question,

although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of

the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish

an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that “there was

an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs

opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and

that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give

light?”[109] But if Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks

that he can find in them matter of charge against the Christians, and

refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity of Jesus, our

answer to him is: “Sir,[110] either disbelieve all the Gospel

narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found charges upon

them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in

admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to

confer benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the

nobility of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those

whom God wills are healed by His name. And with regard to the eclipse in

the time of Tiberius Cæsar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been

crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too,

I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his

Chronicles.”[111]

Footnote 109:

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

Footnote 110:

ὡ οὗτος.

Footnote 111:

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

Chapter XXXIV.

This Jew of Celsus, ridiculing Jesus, as he imagines, is described as

being acquainted with the Bacchæ of Euripides, in which Dionysus says:

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

Now the Jews are not much acquainted with Greek literature; but suppose

that there was a Jew so well versed in it [as to make such a quotation

on his part appropriate], how [does it follow] that Jesus _could_ not

liberate Himself, because He did not do so? For let him believe from our

own Scriptures that Peter obtained his freedom after having been bound

in prison, an angel having loosed his chains; and that Paul, having been

bound in the stocks along with Silas in Philippi of Macedonia, was

liberated by divine power, when the gates of the prison were opened. But

it is probable that Celsus treats these accounts with ridicule, or that

he never read them; for he would probably say in reply, that there are

certain sorcerers who are able by incantations to unloose chains and to

open doors, so that he would liken the events related in our histories

to the doings of sorcerers. “But,” he continues, “no calamity happened

even to him who condemned him, as there did to Pentheus, viz. madness or

discerption.”[113] And yet he does not know that it was not so much

Pilate that condemned Him (who knew that “for envy the Jews had

delivered Him”), as the Jewish nation, which _has_ been condemned by

God, and rent in pieces, and dispersed over the whole earth, in a degree

far beyond what happened to Pentheus. Moreover, why did he intentionally

omit what is related of Pilate’s wife, who beheld a vision, and who was

so moved by it as to send a message to her husband, saying: “Have thou

nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this

day in a dream because of him?”[114] And again, passing by in silence

the proofs of the divinity of Jesus, Celsus endeavours to cast reproach

upon Him from the narratives in the Gospel, referring to those who

mocked Jesus, and put on Him the purple robe, and the crown of thorns,

and placed the reed in His hand. From what source now, Celsus, did you

derive these statements, save from the Gospel narratives? And did you,

accordingly, see that they were fit matters for reproach, while they who

recorded them did not think that you, and such as you, would turn them

into ridicule; but that others would receive from them an example how to

despise those who ridiculed and mocked Him on account of His religion,

who appropriately laid down His life for its sake? Admire rather their

love of truth, and that of the Being who bore these things voluntarily

for the sake of men, and who endured them with all constancy and

long-suffering. For it is not recorded that He uttered any lamentation,

or that after His condemnation He either did or uttered anything

unbecoming.

Footnote 112:

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

Footnote 113:

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

Footnote 114:

Matt. xxvii. 19.

Chapter XXXV.

But in answer to this objection, “If not before, yet why now, at least,

does he not give some manifestation of his divinity, and free himself

from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him

and his Father?” We have to reply, that it would be the same thing as if

we were to say to those among the Greeks who accept the doctrine of

providence, and who believe in portents, Why does God not punish those

who insult the Divinity, and subvert the doctrine of providence? For as

the Greeks would answer such objections, so would we, in the same, or a

more effective manner. There was not only a portent from heaven—the

eclipse of the sun—but also the other miracles, which show that the

crucified One possessed something that was divine, and greater than was

possessed by the majority of men.

Chapter XXXVI.

Celsus next says: “What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the

crucified Jesus? Is it ‘such as flows in the bodies of the immortal

gods?’”[115] He puts this question in a spirit of mockery; but we shall

show from the serious narratives of the Gospels, although Celsus may not

like it, that it was no mythic and Homeric ichor which flowed from the

body of Jesus, but that, after His death, “one of the soldiers with a

spear pierced His side, and there came thereout blood and water. And he

that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he

saith the truth.”[116] Now, in other dead bodies the blood congeals, and

pure water does not flow forth; but the miraculous feature in the case

of the dead body of Jesus was, that around the dead body blood and water

flowed forth from the side. But if this Celsus, who, in order to find

matter of accusation against Jesus and the Christians, extracts from the

Gospel even passages which are incorrectly interpreted, but passes over

in silence the evidences of the divinity of Jesus, would listen to

divine portents, let him read the Gospel, and see that even the

centurion, and they who with him kept watch over Jesus, on seeing the

earthquake, and the events that occurred, were greatly afraid, saying,

“This man was the son of God.”[117]

Footnote 115:

Cf. _Iliad_, vi. 340.

Footnote 116:

Cf. John xix. 34, 35.

Footnote 117:

Cf. Matt. xxvii. 54.

Chapter XXXVII.

After this, he who extracts from the Gospel narrative those statements

on which he thinks he can found an accusation, makes the vinegar and the

gall a subject of reproach to Jesus, saying that “he rushed with open

mouth[118] to drink of them, and could not endure his thirst as any

ordinary man frequently endures it.” Now this matter admits of an

explanation of a peculiar and figurative kind; but on the present

occasion, the statement that the prophets predicted this very incident

may be accepted as the more common answer to the objection. For in the

sixty-ninth Psalm there is written, with reference to Christ: “And they

gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to

drink.”[119] Now, let the Jews say who it is that the prophetic writing

represents as uttering these words; and let them adduce from history one

who received gall for his food, and to whom vinegar was given as drink.

Would they venture to assert that the Christ whom they expect still to

come might be placed in such circumstances? Then we would say, What

prevents the prediction from having been already accomplished? For this

very prediction was uttered many ages before, and is sufficient, along

with the other prophetic utterances, to lead him who fairly examines the

whole matter to the conclusion that Jesus is He who was prophesied of as

Christ, and as the Son of God.

Footnote 118:

χανδὸν.

Footnote 119:

Ps. lxix. 21.

Chapter XXXVIII.

The Jew next remarks: “You, O sincere believers,[120] find fault with

us, because we do not recognise this individual as God, nor agree with

you that he endured these [sufferings] for the benefit of mankind, in

order that we also might despise punishment.” Now, in answer to this, we

say that we blame the Jews, who have been brought up under the training

of the law and the prophets (which foretell the coming of Christ),

because they neither refute the arguments which we lay before them to

prove that He is the Messiah,[121] adducing such refutation as a defence

of their unbelief; nor yet, while not offering any refutation, do they

believe in Him who was the subject of prophecy, and who clearly

manifested through His disciples, even after the period of His

appearance in the flesh, that He underwent these things for the benefit

of mankind; having, as the object of His first advent, not to condemn

men and their actions[122] before He had instructed them, and pointed

out to them their duty,[123] nor to chastise the wicked and save the

good, but to disseminate His doctrine in an extraordinary[124] manner,

and with the evidence of divine power, among the whole human race, as

the prophets also have represented these things. And we blame them,

moreover, because they did not believe in Him who gave evidence of the

power that was in Him, but asserted that He cast out demons from the

souls of men through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and we blame

them because they slander the philanthropic character of Him, who

overlooked not only no city, but not even a single village in Judea,

that He might everywhere announce the kingdom of God, accusing Him of

leading the wandering life of a vagabond, and passing an anxious

existence in a disgraceful body. But there is no disgrace in enduring

such labours for the benefit of all those who may be able to understand

Him.

Footnote 120:

ὡ πιστότατοι.

Footnote 121:

τὸν Χριστὸν.

Footnote 122:

τὰ ἀνθρώπων.

Footnote 123:

μαρτύρασθαι περὶ τῶν πρακτέων.

Footnote 124:

παραδόξως.

Chapter XXXIX.

And how can the following assertion of this Jew of Celsus appear

anything else than a manifest falsehood, viz. that Jesus “having gained

over no one during his life, not even his own disciples, underwent these

punishments and sufferings?” For from what other source sprang the envy

which was aroused against Him by the Jewish high priests, and elders,

and scribes, save from the fact that multitudes obeyed and followed Him,

and were led into the deserts not only by the persuasive[125] language

of Him whose words were always appropriate to His hearers, but who also

by His miracles made an impression on those who were not moved to belief

by His words? And is it not a manifest falsehood to say that “he did not

gain over even his own disciples,” who exhibited, indeed, at that time

some symptoms of human weakness arising from cowardly fear—for they had

not yet been disciplined to the exhibition of full courage—but who by no

means abandoned the judgments which they had formed regarding Him as the

Christ? For Peter, after his denial, perceiving to what a depth of

wickedness he had fallen, “went out and wept bitterly;” while the

others, although stricken with dismay on account of what had happened to

Jesus (for they still continued to admire Him), had, by His glorious

appearance,[126] their belief more firmly established than before that

He was the Son of God.

Footnote 125:

τῆς τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ ἀκολουθίας.

Footnote 126:

ἐπιφανείας.

Chapter XL.

It is, moreover, in a very unphilosophical spirit that Celsus imagines

our Lord’s pre-eminence among men to consist, not in the preaching of

salvation and in a pure morality, but in acting contrary to the

character of that personality which He had taken upon Him, and in not

dying, although He had assumed mortality; or, if dying, yet at least not

such a death as might serve as a pattern to those who were to learn by

that very act how to die for the sake of religion, and to comport

themselves boldly through its help, before those who hold erroneous

views on the subject of religion and irreligion, and who regard

religious men as altogether irreligious, but imagine those to be most

religious who err regarding God, and who apply to everything rather than

to God the ineradicable[127] idea of Him [which is implanted in the

human mind], and especially when they eagerly rush to destroy those who

have yielded themselves up with their whole soul (even unto death), to

the clear evidence of one God who is over all things.

Footnote 127:

τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀδιάστροφον ἔννοιαν.

Chapter XLI.

In the person of the Jew, Celsus continues to find fault with Jesus,

alleging that “he did not show himself to be pure from all evil.” Let

Celsus state from what “evil” our Lord did not show Himself to be pure.

If he means that He was not pure from what is properly termed “evil,”

let him clearly prove the existence of any wicked work in Him. But if he

deems poverty and the cross to be evils, and conspiracy on the part of

wicked men, then it is clear that he would say that evil had happened

also to Socrates, who was unable to show himself pure from evils. And

how great also the other band of poor men is among the Greeks, who have

given themselves to philosophical pursuits, and have voluntarily

accepted a life of poverty, is known to many among the Greeks from what

is recorded of Democritus, who allowed his property to become pasture

for sheep; and of Crates, who obtained his freedom by bestowing upon the

Thebans the price received for the sale of his possessions. Nay, even

Diogenes himself, from excessive poverty, came to live in a tub; and

yet, in the opinion of no one possessed of moderate understanding, was

Diogenes on that account considered to be in an evil (sinful) condition.

Chapter XLII.

But further, since Celsus will have it that “Jesus was not

irreproachable,” let him instance any one of those who adhere to His

doctrine, who has recorded anything that could truly furnish ground of

reproach against Jesus; or if it be not from these that he derives his

matter of accusation against Him, let him say from what quarter he has

learned that which has induced him to say that He is not free from

reproach. Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by

which He conferred benefits upon His adherents. And we, continually

seeing fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz.

that this gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole world,

and that His disciples should go among all nations and announce His

doctrine; and, moreover, that they should be brought before governors

and kings on no other account than because of His teaching; we are lost

in wonder at Him, and have our faith in Him daily confirmed. And I know

not by what greater or more convincing proofs Celsus would have Him

confirm His predictions; unless, indeed, as seems to be the case, not

understanding that the Logos had become the man Jesus, he would have Him

to be subject to no human weakness, nor to become an illustrious pattern

to men of the manner in which they ought to bear the calamities of life,

although these appear to Celsus to be most lamentable and disgraceful

occurrences, seeing that he regards labour[128] to be the greatest of

evils, and pleasure the perfect good,—a view accepted by none of those

philosophers who admit the doctrine of providence, and who allow that

courage, and fortitude, and magnanimity are virtues. Jesus, therefore,

by His sufferings cast no discredit upon the faith of which He was the

object; but rather confirmed the same among those who would approve of

manly courage, and among those who were taught by Him that what was

truly and properly the happy life was not here below, but was to be

found in that which was called, according to His own words, the “coming

world;” whereas in what is called the “present world” life is a

calamity, or at least the first and greatest struggle of the soul.[129]

Footnote 128:

πόνον.

Footnote 129:

ἀγῶνα τὸν πρῶτον καὶ μέγιστον τῆς ψυχῆς.

Chapter XLIII.

Celsus next addresses to us the following remark: “You will not, I

suppose, say of him, that, after failing to gain over those who were in

this world, he went to Hades to gain over those who were there.” But

whether he like it or not, we assert that not only while Jesus was in

the body did He win over not a few persons merely, but so great a

number, that a conspiracy was formed against Him on account of the

multitude of His followers; but also, that when He became a soul,

without the covering of the body, He dwelt among those souls which were

without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to

Himself, or those whom He saw, for reasons known to Him alone, to be

better adapted to such a course.

Chapter XLIV.

Celsus in the next place says, with indescribable silliness: “If, after

inventing defences which are absurd, and by which ye were ridiculously

deluded, ye imagine that you really make a good defence, what prevents

you from regarding those other individuals who have been condemned, and

have died a miserable death, as greater and more divine messengers of

heaven [than Jesus]?” Now, that manifestly and clearly there is no

similarity between Jesus, who suffered what is described, and those who

have died a wretched death on account of their sorcery, or whatever else

be the charge against them, is patent to every one. For no one can point

to any acts of a sorcerer which turned away souls from the practice of

the many sins which prevail among men, and from the flood of wickedness

(in the world).[130] But since this Jew of Celsus compares Him to

robbers, and says that “any similarly shameless fellow might be able to

say regarding even a robber and murderer whom punishment had overtaken,

that such an one was not a robber, but a god, because he predicted to

his fellow-robbers that he would suffer such punishment as he actually

did suffer,” it might, in the first place, be answered, that it is not

because He predicted that He would suffer such things that we entertain

those opinions regarding Jesus which lead us to have confidence in Him,

as one who has come down to us from God. And, in the second place, we

assert that this very comparison[131] has been somehow foretold in the

Gospels; since God was numbered with the transgressors by wicked men,

who desired rather a “murderer” (one who for sedition and murder had

been cast into prison) to be released unto them, and Jesus to be

crucified, and who crucified Him between two robbers. Jesus, indeed, is

ever crucified with robbers among His genuine disciples and witnesses to

the truth, and suffers the same condemnation which they do among men.

And we say, that if those persons have any resemblance to robbers, who

on account of their piety towards God suffer all kinds of injury and

death, that they may keep it pure and unstained, according to the

teaching of Jesus, then it is clear also that Jesus, the author of such

teaching, is with good reason compared by Celsus to the captain of a

band of robbers. But neither was He who died for the common good of

mankind, nor they who suffered because of their religion, and alone of

all men were persecuted because of what appeared to them the right way

of honouring God, put to death in accordance with justice, nor was Jesus

persecuted without the charge of impiety being incurred by His

persecutors.

Footnote 130:

τῆς κατὰ τὴν κακίαν φύσεως.

Footnote 131:

καὶ ταῦτα.

Chapter XLV.

But observe the superficial nature of his argument respecting the former

disciples of Jesus, in which he says: “In the next place, those who were

his associates while alive, and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed

his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him subjected to punishment

and death, neither died with him, nor for him, nor were even induced to

regard punishment with contempt, but denied even that they were his

disciples, whereas now ye die along with him.” And here he believes the

sin which was committed by the disciples while they were yet beginners

and imperfect, and which is recorded in the Gospels, to have been

actually committed, in order that he may have matter of accusation

against the gospel; but their upright conduct after their transgression,

when they behaved with courage before the Jews, and suffered countless

cruelties at their hands, and at last suffered death for the doctrine of

Jesus, he passes by in silence. For he would neither hear the words of

Jesus, when He predicted to Peter, “When thou shalt be old, thou shalt

stretch forth thy hands,”[132] etc., to which the Scripture adds, “This

spake He, signifying by what death he should glorify God;” nor how James

the brother of John—an apostle, the brother of an apostle—was slain with

the sword by Herod for the doctrine of Christ; nor even the many

instances of boldness displayed by Peter and the other apostles because

of the gospel, and “how they went forth from the presence of the

Sanhedrim after being scourged, rejoicing that they were counted worthy

to suffer shame for His name,”[133] and so surpassing many of the

instances related by the Greeks of the fortitude and courage of their

philosophers. From the very beginning, then, this was inculcated as a

precept of Jesus among His hearers, which taught men to despise the life

which is eagerly sought after by the multitude, but to be earnest in

living the life which resembles that of God.

Footnote 132:

John xxi. 18.

Footnote 133:

Acts v. 41.

Chapter XLVI.

But how can this Jew of Celsus escape the charge of falsehood, when he

says that Jesus, “when on earth, gained over to himself only ten sailors

and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not even the

whole of these?” Now it is certain that the Jews themselves would admit

that He drew over not ten persons merely, nor a hundred, nor a thousand,

but on one occasion five thousand at once, and on another four thousand;

and that He attracted them to such a degree that they followed Him even

into the deserts, which alone could contain the assembled multitude of

those who believed in God through Jesus, and where He not only addressed

to them discourses, but also manifested to them His works. And now,

through his tautology, he compels us also to be tautological, since we

are careful to guard against being supposed to pass over any of the

charges advanced by him; and therefore, in reference to the matter

before us, following the order of his treatise as we have it, he says:

“Is it not the height of absurdity to maintain, that if, while he

himself was alive, he won over not a single person to his views, after

his death any who wish are able to gain over such a multitude of

individuals?” Whereas he ought to have said, in consistency with truth,

that if, after His death, not simply those who will, but they who have

the will and the power, can gain over so many proselytes, how much more

consonant to reason is it, that while He was alive He should, through

the greater power of His words and deeds, have won over to Himself

manifold greater numbers of adherents?

Chapter XLVII.

He represents, moreover, a statement of his own as if it were an answer

to one of his questions, in which he asks: “By what train of argument

were you led to regard him as the Son of God?” For he makes us answer

that “we were won over to him, because[134] we know that his punishment

was undergone to bring about the destruction of the father of evil.” Now

we were won over to His doctrine by innumerable other considerations, of

which we have stated only the smallest part in the preceding pages; but,

if God permit, we shall continue to enumerate them, not only while

dealing with the so-called _True Discourse_ of Celsus, but also on many

other occasions. And, as if we said that we consider Him to be the Son

of God because He suffered punishment, he asks: “What then? have not

many others, too, been punished, and that not less disgracefully?” And

here Celsus acts like the most contemptible enemies of the gospel, and

like those who imagine that it follows as a consequence from our history

of the crucified Jesus, that we should worship those who have undergone

crucifixion!

Footnote 134:

The reading in the text is εἰ καὶ ἔἴσμεν; for which both Bohereau and

De la Rue propose ἐπεὶ ἴσμεν, which has been adopted in the

translation: cf. ἐπεὶ ἔκολάσθη, _infra_.

Chapter XLVIII.

Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles which Jesus is recorded

to have performed, has already on several occasions spoken of them

slanderously as works of sorcery; and we also on several occasions have,

to the best of our ability, replied to his statements. And now he

represents us as saying that “we deemed Jesus to be the Son of God,

because he healed the lame and the blind.” And he adds: “Moreover, as

you assert, he raised the dead.” That He healed the lame and the blind,

and that therefore we hold Him to be the Christ and the Son of God, is

manifest to us from what is contained in the prophecies: “Then the eyes

of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then

shall the lame man leap as an hart.”[135] And that He also raised the

dead, and that it is no fiction of those who composed the Gospels, is

shown by this, that if it had been a fiction, _many_ individuals would

have been represented as having risen from the dead, and these, too,

such as had been many years in their graves. But as it is no fiction,

they are very easily counted of whom this is related to have happened;

viz. the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (of whom I know not why

He said, “She is not dead, but sleepeth,” stating regarding her

something which does not apply to all who die); and the only son of the

widow, on whom He took compassion and raised him up, making the bearers

of the corpse to stand still; and the third instance, that of Lazarus,

who had been four days in the grave. Now, regarding these cases we would

say to all persons of candid mind, and especially to the Jew, that as

there were many lepers in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none of

them was healed save Naaman the Syrian, and many widows in the days of

Elijah the prophet, to none of whom was Elijah sent save to Sarepta in

Sidonia (for the widow there had been deemed worthy by a divine decree

of the miracle which was wrought by the prophet in the matter of the

bread); so also there were many dead in the days of Jesus, but those

only rose from the grave whom the Logos knew to be fitted for a

resurrection, in order that the works done by the Lord might not be

merely symbols of certain things, but that by the very acts themselves

He might gain over many to the marvellous doctrine of the gospel. I

would say, moreover, that, agreeably to the promise of Jesus, His

disciples performed even greater works than these miracles of Jesus,

which were perceptible only to the senses.[136] For the eyes of those

who are blind in soul are ever opened; and the ears of those who were

deaf to virtuous words, listen readily to the doctrine of God, and of

the blessed life with Him; and many, too, who were lame in the feet of

the “inner man,” as Scripture calls it, having now been healed by the

word, do not simply leap, but leap as the hart, which is an animal

hostile to serpents, and stronger than all the poison of vipers. And

these lame who have been healed, receive from Jesus power to trample,

with those feet in which they were formerly lame, upon the serpents and

scorpions of wickedness, and generally upon all the power of the enemy;

and though they tread upon it, they sustain no injury, for they also

have become stronger than the poison of all evil and of demons.

Footnote 135:

Cf. Isa. xxxv. 5, 6.

Footnote 136:

ὧν Ἰησοῦς αἰσθητῶν.

Chapter XLIX.

Jesus, accordingly, in turning away the minds of His disciples, not

merely from giving heed to sorcerers in general, and those who profess

in any other manner to work miracles—for His disciples did not need to

be so warned—but from such as gave themselves out as the Christ of God,

and who tried by certain apparent[137] miracles to gain over to them the

disciples of Jesus, said in a certain passage: “Then, if any man shall

say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there

shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs

and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the

very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore, if they shall say

unto you, Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth; behold, he is in

the secret chambers, believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of

the east, and shineth even to the west, so also shall the coming of the

Son of man be.”[138] And in another passage: “Many will say unto me in

that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in Thy name, and by

Thy name have cast out demons, and done many wonderful works? And then

will I say unto them, Depart from me, because ye are workers of

iniquity.”[139] But Celsus, wishing to assimilate the miracles of Jesus

to the works of human sorcery, says in express terms as follows: “O

light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye

yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others,

employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers;

and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan. So that Jesus

himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine,

but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of

truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but

convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable

inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the

others sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be

accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their

witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are

not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of certain

deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men.” Observe, now, whether Celsus

is not clearly convicted of slandering the gospel by such statements,

since what Jesus says regarding those who are to work signs and wonders

is different from what this Jew of Celsus alleges it to be. For if Jesus

had simply told His disciples to be on their guard against those who

professed to work miracles, without declaring what they would give

themselves out to be, then perhaps there would have been some ground for

his suspicion. But since those against whom Jesus would have us to be on

our guard give themselves out as the Christ—which is not a claim put

forth by sorcerers—and since he says that even some who lead wicked

lives will perform miracles in the name of Jesus, and expel demons out

of men, sorcery in the case of these individuals, or any suspicion of

such, is rather, if we may so speak, altogether banished, and the

divinity of Christ established, as well as the divine mission[140] of

His disciples; seeing that it is possible that one who makes use of His

name, and who is wrought upon by some power, in some way unknown, to

make the pretence that he is the Christ, should seem to perform miracles

like those of Jesus, while others through His name should do works

resembling those of His genuine disciples.

Footnote 137:

φαντασιῶν.

Footnote 138:

Matt. xxiv. 23-27.

Footnote 139:

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

Footnote 140:

θειότης, lit. divinity.

Chapter L.

Paul, moreover, in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, shows in

what manner there will one day be revealed “the man of sin, the son of

perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called

God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God,

showing himself that he is God.”[141] And again he says to the

Thessalonians: “And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be

revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:

only He who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way: and

then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the

spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His

coming: even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all

power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of

unrighteousness in them that perish.”[142] And in assigning the reason

why the man of sin is permitted to continue in existence, he says:

“Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be

saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they

should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the

truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”[143] Let any one now say

whether any of the statements in the Gospel, or in the writings of the

apostle, could give occasion for the suspicion that there is therein

contained any prediction of sorcery. Any one, moreover, who likes may

find the prophecy in Daniel respecting antichrist.[144] But Celsus

falsifies the words of Jesus, since He did not say that others would

come working similar miracles to Himself, but who are wicked men and

sorcerers, although Celsus asserts that He uttered such words. For as

the power of the Egyptian magicians was not similar to the

divinely-bestowed grace of Moses, but the issue clearly proved that the

acts of the former were the effect of magic, while those of Moses were

wrought by divine power; so the proceedings of the antichrists, and of

those who feign that they can work miracles as being the disciples of

Christ, are said to be lying signs and wonders, prevailing with all

deceivableness of unrighteousness among them that perish; whereas the

works of Christ and His disciples had for their fruit, not deceit, but

the salvation of human souls. And who would rationally maintain that an

improved moral life, which daily lessened the number of a man’s

offences, could proceed from a system of deceit?

Footnote 141:

2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.

Footnote 142:

2 Thess. ii. 6-10.

Footnote 143:

2 Thess. ii. 10-12.

Footnote 144:

Cf. Dan. vii. 26.

Chapter LI.

Celsus, indeed, evinced a slight knowledge of Scripture when he made

Jesus say, that it is “a certain Satan who contrives such devices;”

although he begs the question[145] when he asserts that “Jesus did not

deny that these works have in them nothing of divinity, but proceed from

wicked men,” for he makes things which differ in kind to be the same.

Now, as a wolf is not of the same species as a dog, although it may

appear to have some resemblance in the figure of its body and in its

voice, nor a common wood-pigeon[146] the same as a dove,[147] so there

is no resemblance between what is done by the power of God and what is

the effect of sorcery. And we might further say, in answer to the

calumnies of Celsus, Are those to be regarded as miracles which are

wrought through sorcery by wicked demons, but those not which are

performed by a nature that is holy and divine? and does human life

endure the worse, but never receive the better? Now it appears to me

that we must lay it down as a general principle, that as, wherever

anything that is evil would make itself to be of the same nature with

the good, there must by all means be something that is good opposed to

the evil; so also, in opposition to those things which are brought about

by sorcery, there must also of necessity be some things in human life

which are the result of divine power. And it follows from the same, that

we must either annihilate both, and assert that neither exists, or,

assuming the one, and particularly the evil, admit also the reality of

the good. Now, if one were to lay it down that works are wrought by

means of sorcery, but would not grant that there are also works which

are the product of divine power, he would seem to me to resemble him who

should admit the existence of sophisms and plausible arguments, which

have the appearance of establishing the truth, although really

undermining it, while denying that truth had anywhere a home among men,

or a dialectic which differed from sophistry. But if we once admit that

it is consistent with the existence of magic and sorcery (which derive

their power from evil demons, who are spell-bound by elaborate

incantations, and become subject to sorcerers) that some works must be

found among men which proceed from a power that is divine, why shall we

not test those who profess to perform them by their lives and morals,

and the consequences of their miracles, viz. whether they tend to the

injury of men or to the reformation of conduct? What minister of evil

demons, _e.g._, can do such things? and by means of what incantations

and magic arts? And who, on the other hand, is it that, having his soul

and his spirit, and I imagine also his body, in a pure and holy state,

receives a divine spirit, and performs such works in order to benefit

men, and to lead them to believe on the true God? But if we must once

investigate (without being carried away by the miracles themselves) who

it is that performs them by help of a good, and who by help of an evil

power, so that we may neither slander all without discrimination, nor

yet admire and accept all as divine, will it not be manifest, from what

occurred in the times of Moses and Jesus, when entire nations were

established in consequence of their miracles, that these men wrought by

means of divine power what they are recorded to have performed? For

wickedness and sorcery would not have led a whole nation to rise not

only above idols and images erected by men, but also above all created

things, and to ascend to the uncreated origin of the God of the

universe.

Footnote 145:

συναρπάζει τὸν λόγον.

Footnote 146:

φάσσα.

Footnote 147:

περιστερά.

Chapter LII.

But since it is a Jew who makes these assertions in the treatise of

Celsus, we would say to him: Pray, friend, why do you believe the works

which are recorded in your writings as having been performed by God

through the instrumentality of Moses to be really divine, and endeavour

to refute those who slanderously assert that they were wrought by

sorcery, like those of the Egyptian magicians; while, in imitation of

your Egyptian opponents, you charge those which were done by Jesus, and

which, you admit, were actually performed, with not being divine? For if

the final result, and the founding of an entire nation by the miracles

of Moses, manifestly demonstrate that it was God who brought these

things to pass in the time of Moses the Hebrew lawgiver, why should not

such rather be shown to be the case with Jesus, who accomplished far

greater works than those of Moses? For the former took those of his own

nation, the descendants of Abraham, who had observed the rite of

circumcision transmitted by tradition, and who were careful observers of

the Abrahamic usages, and led them out of Egypt, enacting for them those

laws which you believe to be divine; whereas the latter ventured upon a

greater undertaking, and superinduced upon the pre-existing

constitution, and upon ancestral customs and modes of life agreeable to

the existing laws, a constitution in conformity with the gospel. And as

it was necessary, in order that Moses should find credit not only among

the elders, but the common people, that there should be performed those

miracles which he is recorded to have performed, why should not Jesus

also, in order that He may be believed on by those of the people who had

learned to ask for signs and wonders, require to work such miracles as,

on account of their greater grandeur and divinity (in comparison with

those of Moses), were able to convert men from Jewish fables, and from

the human traditions which prevailed among them, and make them admit

that He who taught and did such things was greater than the prophets?

For how was not He greater than the prophets, who was proclaimed by them

to be the Christ, and the Saviour of the human race?

Chapter LIII.

All the arguments, indeed, which this Jew of Celsus advances against

those who believe on Jesus, may, by parity of reasoning, be urged as

ground of accusation against Moses: so that there is no difference in

asserting that the sorcery practised by Jesus and that by Moses were

similar to each other,[148]—both of them, so far as the language of this

Jew of Celsus is concerned, being liable to the same charge; as, _e.g._,

when this Jew says of Christ, “But, O light and truth! Jesus with his

own voice expressly declares, as you yourselves have recorded, that

there will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like

mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers,” some one, either Greek or

Egyptian, or any other party who disbelieved the Jew, might say

respecting Moses, “But, O light and truth! Moses with his own voice

expressly declares, as ye also have recorded, that there will appear

among you others also, who will perform miracles like mine, but who are

wicked men and sorcerers. For it is written in your law, ‘If there arise

among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a

wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee,

saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us

serve them; thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet or

dreamer of dreams,’”[149] etc. Again, perverting the words of Jesus, he

says, “And he terms him who devises such things, one Satan;” while one,

applying this to Moses, might say, “And he terms him who devises such

things, a prophet who dreams dreams.” And as this Jew asserts regarding

Jesus, that “even he himself does not deny that these works have in them

nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men;” so any one who

disbelieves the writings of Moses might say, quoting what has been

already said, the same thing, viz., that “even Moses does not deny that

these works have in them nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked

men.” And he will do the same thing also with respect to this: “Being

compelled by the force of truth, Moses at the same time both exposed the

doings of others, and convicted himself of the same.” And when the Jew

says, “Is it not a wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude

that the one is a God, and the others sorcerers?” one might object to

him, on the ground of those words of Moses already quoted, “Is it not

then a wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one

is a prophet and servant of God, and the others sorcerers?” But when, in

addition to those comparisons which I have already mentioned, Celsus,

dwelling upon the subject, adduces this also: “Why from these works

should the others be accounted wicked, rather than this man, seeing they

have him as a witness against himself?”—we, too, shall adduce the

following, in addition to what has been already said: “Why, from those

passages in which Moses forbids us to believe those who exhibit signs

and wonders, ought we to consider such persons as wicked, rather than

Moses, because he calumniates some of them in respect of their signs and

wonders?” And urging more to the same effect, that he may appear to

strengthen his attempt, he says: “He himself acknowledged that these

were not the works of a divine nature, but were the inventions of

certain deceivers, and of very wicked men.” Who, then, is “himself?”

You, O Jew, say that it is Jesus; but he who accuses you as liable to

the same charges, will transfer this “himself” to the person of Moses.

Footnote 148:

ὥστε μηδὲν διαφέρειν παραπλήσιον εἶναι λέγειν γοητείαν τὴν Ἰησοῦ τῇ

Μωϋσέως.

Footnote 149:

Deut. xiii. 1-3.

Chapter LIV.

After this, forsooth, the Jew of Celsus, to keep up the character

assigned to the Jew from the beginning, in his address to those of his

countrymen who had become believers, says: “By what, then, were you

induced [to become his followers]? Was it because he foretold that after

his death he would rise again?” Now this question, like the others, can

be retorted upon Moses. For we might say to the Jew: “By what, then,

were _you_ induced [to become the follower of Moses]? Was it because he

put on record the following statement about his own death: ‘And Moses,

the servant of the Lord, died there, in the land of Moab, according to

the word of the Lord; and they buried him in Moab, near the house of

Phogor: and no one knoweth his sepulchre until this day?’”[150] For as

the Jew casts discredit upon the statement, that “Jesus foretold that

after His death He would rise again,” another person might make a

similar assertion about Moses, and would say in reply, that Moses also

put on record (for the book of Deuteronomy is his composition) the

statement, that “no one knoweth his sepulchre until this day,” in order

to magnify and enhance the importance of his place of burial, as being

unknown to mankind.

Footnote 150:

Cf. Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6.

Chapter LV.

The Jew continues his address to those of his countrymen who are

converts, as follows: “Come now, let us grant to you that the prediction

was actually uttered. Yet how many others are there who practise such

juggling tricks, in order to deceive their simple hearers, and who make

gain by their deception?—as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis[151]

in Scythia, the slave of Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in

Italy; and with Rhampsinitus[152] in Egypt (the latter of whom, they

say, played at dice with Demeter in Hades, and returned to the upper

world with a golden napkin which he had received from her as a gift);

and also with Orpheus[153] among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in

Thessaly, and Hercules[154] at Cape Tænarus, and Theseus. But the

question is, whether any one who was really dead ever rose with a

veritable body.[155] Or do you imagine the statements of others not only

to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have

discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the

voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake

and the darkness? That while alive he was of no assistance to himself,

but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his

punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this?

A half-frantic[156] woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of

those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either

dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind,[157] or under the

influence of a wandering imagination had formed to himself an appearance

according to his own wishes,[158] which has been the case with

numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to

impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an

occasion to impostors like himself.”

Now, since it is a Jew who makes these statements, we shall conduct the

defence of our Jesus as if we were replying to a Jew, still continuing

the comparison derived from the accounts regarding Moses, and saying to

him: “How many others are there who practise similar juggling tricks to

those of Moses, in order to deceive their silly hearers, and who make

gain by their deception?” Now this objection would be more appropriate

in the mouth of one who did not believe in Moses (as we might quote the

instances of Zamolxis and Pythagoras, who were engaged in such juggling

tricks) than in that of a Jew, who is not very learned in the histories

of the Greeks. An Egyptian, moreover, who did not believe the miracles

of Moses, might credibly adduce the instance of Rhampsinitus, saying

that it was far more credible that he had descended to Hades, and had

played at dice with Demeter, and that after stealing from her a golden

napkin he exhibited it as a sign of his having been in Hades, and of his

having returned thence, than that Moses should have recorded that he

entered into the darkness, where God was, and that he alone, above all

others, drew near to God. For the following is his statement: “Moses

alone shall come near the Lord; but the rest shall not come nigh.”[159]

We, then, who are the disciples of Jesus, say to the Jew who urges these

objections: “While assailing our belief in Jesus, defend yourself, and

answer the Egyptian and the Greek objectors: what will you say to those

charges which you brought against our Jesus, but which also might be

brought against Moses first? And if you should make a vigorous effort to

defend Moses, as indeed his history does admit of a clear and powerful

defence, you will unconsciously, in your support of Moses, be an

unwilling assistant in establishing the greater divinity of Jesus.”

Footnote 151:

Cf. Herodot. iv. 95.

Footnote 152:

Cf. Herodot. ii. 122.

Footnote 153:

Cf. Diodor. iv. _Bibl. Hist._

Footnote 154:

Cf. Diodor. iv. _Bibl. Hist._

Footnote 155:

αὐτῷ σώματι.

Footnote 156:

γυνὴ πάροιστρος.

Footnote 157:

κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας.

Footnote 158:

ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δοξῇ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθείς.

Footnote 159:

Cf. Ex. xxiv. 2.

Chapter LVI.

But since the Jew says that these histories of the alleged descent of

heroes to Hades, and of their return thence, are juggling

impositions,[160] maintaining that these heroes disappeared for a

certain time, and secretly withdrew themselves from the sight of all

men, and gave themselves out afterwards as having returned from

Hades,—for such is the meaning which his words seem to convey respecting

the Odrysian Orpheus, and the Thessalian Protesilaus, and the Tænarian

Hercules, and Theseus also,—let us endeavour to show that the account of

Jesus being raised from the dead cannot possibly be compared to these.

For each one of the heroes respectively mentioned might, had he wished,

have secretly withdrawn himself from the sight of men, and returned

again, if so determined, to those whom he had left; but seeing that

Jesus was crucified before all the Jews, and His body slain in the

presence of His nation, how can they bring themselves to say that He

practised a similar deception[161] with those heroes who are related to

have gone down to Hades, and to have returned thence? But we say that

the following consideration might be adduced, perhaps, as a defence of

the public crucifixion of Jesus, especially in connection with the

existence of those stories of heroes who are supposed to have been

compelled[162] to descend to Hades: that if we were to suppose Jesus to

have died an obscure death, so that the fact of His decease was not

patent to the whole nation of the Jews, and afterwards to have actually

risen from the dead, there would, in such a case, have been ground for

the same suspicion entertained regarding the heroes being also

entertained regarding Himself. Probably, then, in addition to other

causes for the crucifixion of Jesus, this also may have contributed to

His dying a conspicuous death upon the cross, that no one might have it

in his power to say that He voluntarily withdrew from the sight of men,

and seemed only to die, without really doing so; but, appearing again,

made a juggler’s trick[163] of the resurrection from the dead. But a

clear and unmistakeable proof of the fact I hold to be the undertaking

of His disciples, who devoted themselves to the teaching of a doctrine

which was attended with danger to human life,—a doctrine which they

would not have taught with such courage had they invented the

resurrection of Jesus from the dead; and who also, at the same time, not

only prepared others to despise death, but were themselves the first to

manifest their disregard for its terrors.

Footnote 160:

τερατείας.

Footnote 161:

πῶς οἴονται τὸ παραπλήσιον πλάσασθαι λέγειν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἰστορουμένοις,

etc.

Footnote 162:

καταβεβηκέναι βιᾷ. Bohereau proposes the omission of βιᾷ.

Footnote 163:

ἐτερατεύσατο.

Chapter LVII.

But observe whether this Jew of Celsus does not talk very blindly, in

saying that it is impossible for any one to rise from the dead with a

veritable body, his language being: “But this is the question, whether

any one who was really dead ever rose again with a veritable body?” Now

a Jew would not have uttered these words, who believed what is recorded

in the third and fourth books of Kings regarding little children, of

whom the one was raised up by Elijah,[164] and the other by Elisha.[165]

And on this account, too, I think it was that Jesus appeared to no other

nation than the Jews, who had become accustomed to miraculous

occurrences; so that, by comparing what they themselves believed with

the works which were done by Him, and with what was related of Him, they

might confess that He, in regard to whom greater things were done, and

by whom mightier marvels were performed, was greater than all those who

preceded Him.

Footnote 164:

Cf. 1 Kings xvii. 21, 22.

Footnote 165:

Cf. 2 Kings iv. 34, 35.

Chapter LVIII.

Further, after these Greek stories which the Jew adduced respecting

those who were guilty of juggling practices,[166] and who pretended to

have risen from the dead, he says to those Jews who are converts to

Christianity: “Do you imagine the statements of others not only to be

myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a

becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the

cross, when he breathed his last?” We reply to the Jew: “What you adduce

as myths, we regard also as such; but the statements of the Scriptures

which are common to us both, in which not you only, but we also, take

pride, we do not at all regard as myths. And therefore we accord our

belief to those who have therein related that some rose from the dead,

as not being guilty of imposition; and to Him especially there mentioned

as having risen, who both predicted the event Himself, and was the

subject of prediction by others. And His resurrection is more miraculous

than that of the others in this respect, that they were raised by the

prophets Elijah and Elisha, while He was raised by none of the prophets,

but by His Father in heaven. And therefore His resurrection also

produced greater results than theirs. For what great good has accrued to

the world from the resurrection of the children through the

instrumentality of Elijah and Elisha, such as has resulted from the

preaching of the resurrection of Jesus, accepted as an article of

belief, and as effected through the agency of divine power?”

Footnote 166:

τερατευομένοις.

Chapter LIX.

He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an

invention;[167] but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages made

our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of

Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our

Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that “Jesus, while alive, was

of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and

exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been

pierced by nails.” We ask him what he means by the expression, “was of

no assistance to himself?” For if he means it to refer to want of

virtue, we reply that He _was_ of very great assistance. For He neither

uttered nor committed anything that was improper, but was truly “led as

a sheep to the slaughter, and was dumb as a lamb before the

shearer;”[168] and the Gospel testifies that He opened not His mouth.

But if Celsus applies the expression to things indifferent and

corporeal,[169] [meaning that in such Jesus could render no help to

Himself,] we say that we have proved from the Gospels that He went

voluntarily to encounter His sufferings. Speaking next of the statements

in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the marks of His

punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks, “Who beheld

this?” And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene, who is related

to have seen Him, he replies, “A half-frantic woman, as ye state.” And

because she is not the only one who is recorded to have seen the Saviour

after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew of

Celsus calumniates these statements also in adding, “And some one else

of those engaged in the same system of deception!”

Footnote 167:

τερατείαν.

Footnote 168:

Isa. liii. 7.

Footnote 169:

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

Chapter LX.

In the next place, as if this were possible, viz. that the image of a

man who was dead could appear to another as if he were still living, he

adopts this opinion as an Epicurean, and says, “That some one having so

dreamed owing to a peculiar state of mind, or having, under the

influence of a perverted imagination, formed such an appearance as he

himself desired, reported that such had been seen; and this,” he

continues, “has been the case with numberless individuals.” But even if

this statement of his seems to have a considerable degree of force, it

is nevertheless only fitted to confirm a necessary doctrine, that the

soul of the dead exists in a separate state [from the body]; and he who

adopts such an opinion does not believe without good reason in the

immortality, or at least continued existence, of the soul, as even Plato

says in his treatise on the Soul that shadowy phantoms of persons

already dead have appeared to some around their sepulchres. Now the

phantoms which exist about the soul of the dead are produced by some

substance, and this substance is in the soul, which exists apart in a

body said to be of splendid appearance.[170] But Celsus, unwilling to

admit any such view, will have it that some dreamed a waking dream,[171]

and, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed to

themselves such an image as they desired. Now it is not irrational to

believe that a dream may take place while one is asleep; but to suppose

a waking vision in the case of those who are not altogether out of their

senses, and under the influence of delirium or hypochondria, is

incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the woman “half-mad,”—a

statement which is not made by the history recording the fact, but from

which he took occasion to charge the occurrences with being untrue.

Footnote 170:

τὰ μὲν οὖν γινόμενα περὶ ψυχῆς τεθνηκότων φαντάσματα ἀπό τινος

ὑποκειμένου γίνεται, τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑφεστηκυῖαν ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ

αὐγοειδεῖ σώματι ψυχὴν. Cf. note in Benedictine ed.

Footnote 171:

ὑπαρ.

Chapter LXI.

Jesus accordingly, as Celsus imagines, exhibited after His death only

the appearance of wounds received on the cross, and was not in reality

so wounded as He is described to have been; whereas, according to the

teaching of the Gospel—some portions of which Celsus arbitrarily

accepts, in order to find ground of accusation, and other parts of which

he rejects—Jesus called to Him one of His disciples who was sceptical,

and who deemed the miracle an impossibility. That individual had,

indeed, expressed his belief in the statement of the woman who said that

she had seen Him, because he did not think it impossible that the soul

of a dead man could be seen; but he did not yet consider the report to

be true that He had been raised in a body, which was the antitype of the

former.[172] And therefore he did not merely say, “Unless I see, I will

not believe;” but he added, “Unless I put my hand into the print of the

nails, and lay my hands upon His side, I will not believe.” These words

were spoken by Thomas, who deemed it possible that the body of the soul

might be seen by the eye of sense, resembling in all respects its former

appearance,

“Both in size, and in beauty of eyes,

And in voice;”

and frequently, too,

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

alive].”

Jesus accordingly, having called Thomas, said, “Reach hither thy finger,

and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my

side: and be not faithless, but believing.”[174]

Footnote 172:

ἐν σώματι ἀντιτύπῳ ἐγηγέρθαι.

Footnote 173:

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

Footnote 174:

Cf. John xx. 27.

Chapter LXII.

Now it followed from all the predictions which were uttered regarding

Him—amongst which was this prediction of the resurrection—and from all

that was done by Him, and from all the events which befell Him, that

this event should be marvellous above all others. For it had been said

beforehand by the prophet in the person of Jesus: “My flesh shall rest

in hope, and Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, and wilt not suffer

Thine Holy One to see corruption.”[175] And truly, after His

resurrection, He existed in a body intermediate, as it were, between the

grossness of that which He had before His sufferings, and the appearance

of a soul uncovered by such a body. And hence it was, that when His

disciples were together, and Thomas with them, there “came Jesus, the

doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,”[176] etc. And in the

Gospel of Luke also, while Simon and Cleopas were conversing with each

other respecting all that had happened to them, Jesus “drew near, and

went with them. And their eyes were holden, that they should not know

Him. And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that

ye have one to another, as ye walk?” And when their eyes were opened,

and they knew Him, then the Scripture says, in express words, “And He

vanished out of their sight.”[177] And although Celsus may wish to place

what is told of Jesus, and of those who saw Him after His resurrection,

on the same level with imaginary appearances of a different kind, and

those who have invented such, yet to those who institute a candid and

intelligent examination, the events will appear only the more

miraculous.

Footnote 175:

Ps. xvi. 9, 10.

Footnote 176:

John xx. 26, 27.

Footnote 177:

Luke xxiv. 15, 31.

Chapter LXIII.

After these points, Celsus proceeds to bring against the Gospel

narrative a charge which is not to be lightly passed over, saying that

“if Jesus desired to show that his power was really divine, he ought to

have appeared to those who had ill-treated him, and to him who had

condemned him, and to all men universally.” For it appears to us also to

be true, according to the Gospel account, that He was not seen after His

resurrection in the same manner as He used formerly to show

Himself—publicly, and to all men. But it is recorded in the Acts, that

“being seen during forty days,” He expounded to His disciples “the

things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”[178] And in the Gospels[179]

it is not stated that He was always with them; but that on one occasion

He appeared in their midst, after eight days, when the doors were shut,

and on another in some similar fashion. And Paul also, in the concluding

portions of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in reference to His

not having publicly appeared as He did in the period before He suffered,

writes as follows: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I

also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the

Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after

that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the

greater part remain unto the present time, but some are fallen asleep.

After that He was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of

all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”[180] I am

of opinion now that the statements in this passage contain some great

and wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp not merely of the

great multitude of ordinary believers, but even of those who are far

advanced [in Christian knowledge], and that in them the reason would be

explained why He did not show Himself, after His resurrection from the

dead, in the same manner as before that event. And in a treatise of this

nature, composed in answer to a work directed against the Christians and

their faith, observe whether we are able to adduce a few rational

arguments out of a greater number, and thus make an impression upon the

hearers of this apology.

Footnote 178:

Acts i. 3.

Footnote 179:

Cf. John xx. 26.

Footnote 180:

1 Cor. xv. 3-8.

Chapter LXIV.

Although Jesus was only a single individual, He was nevertheless more

things than one, according to the different standpoint from which He

might be regarded;[181] nor was He seen in the same way by all who

beheld Him. Now, that He was more things than one, according to the

varying point of view, is clear from this statement, “I am the way, and

the truth, and the life;” and from this, “I am the bread;” and this, “I

am the door,” and innumerable others. And that when seen He did not

appear in like fashion to all those who saw Him, but according to their

several ability to receive Him, will be clear to those who notice why,

at the time when He was about to be transfigured on the high mountain,

He did not admit all His apostles [to this sight], but only Peter, and

James, and John, because they alone were capable of beholding His glory

on that occasion, and of observing the glorified appearance of Moses and

Elijah, and of listening to their conversation, and to the voice from

the heavenly cloud. I am of opinion, too, that before He ascended the

mountain where His disciples came to Him alone, and where He taught them

the beatitudes, when He was somewhere in the lower part of the mountain,

and when, as it became late, He healed those who were brought to Him,

freeing them from all sickness and disease, He did not appear the same

person to the sick, and to those who needed His healing aid, as to those

who were able by reason of their strength to go up the mountain along

with Him. Nay, even when He interpreted privately to His own disciples

the parables which were delivered to the multitudes without, from whom

the explanation was withheld, as they who heard them explained were

endowed with higher organs of hearing than they who heard them without

explanation, so was it altogether the same with the eyes of their soul,

and, I think, also with those of their body.[182] And the following

statement shows that He had not always the same appearance, viz. that

Judas, when about to betray Him, said to the multitudes who were setting

out with him, as not being acquainted with Him, “Whomsoever I shall

kiss, the same is he.”[183] And I think that the Saviour Himself

indicates the same thing by the words: “I was daily with you, teaching

in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.”[184] Entertaining, then, such

exalted views regarding Jesus, not only with respect to the Deity

within, and which was hidden from the view of the multitude, but with

respect to the transfiguration of His body, which took place when and to

whom He would, we say, that before Jesus had “put off the governments

and powers,”[185] and while as yet He was not dead unto sin, all men

were capable of seeing Him; but that, when He had “put off the

governments and powers,” and had no longer anything which was capable of

being seen by the multitude, all who had formerly seen Him were not now

able to behold Him. And therefore, sparing them, He did not show Himself

to all after His resurrection from the dead.

Footnote 181:

πλείονα τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ ἦν.

Footnote 182:

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

σώματος.

Footnote 183:

Matt. xxvi. 48.

Footnote 184:

Matt. xxvi. 55.

Footnote 185:

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

Chapter LXV.

And why do I say “to all?” For even with His own apostles and disciples

He was not perpetually present, nor did He constantly show Himself to

them, because they were not able without intermission[186] to receive

His divinity. For His deity was more resplendent after He had finished

the economy[187] [of salvation]: and this Peter, surnamed Cephas, the

first-fruits as it were of the apostles, was enabled to behold, and

along with him the twelve (Matthias having been substituted in room of

Judas); and after them He appeared to the five hundred brethren at once,

and then to James, and subsequently to all the others besides the twelve

apostles, perhaps to the seventy also, and lastly to Paul, as to one

born out of due time, and who knew well how to say, “Unto me, who am

less than the least of all saints, is this grace given;” and probably

the expression “least of all” has the same meaning with “one born out of

due time.” For as no one could reasonably blame Jesus for not having

admitted all His apostles to the high mountain, but only the three

already mentioned, on the occasion of His transfiguration, when He was

about to manifest the splendour which appeared in His garments, and the

glory of Moses and Elias talking with Him, so none could reasonably

object to the statements of the apostles, who introduce the appearance

of Jesus after His resurrection as having been made not to all, but to

those only whom He knew to have received eyes capable of seeing His

resurrection. I think, moreover, that the following statement regarding

Him has an apologetic value[188] in reference to our subject, viz.: “For

to this end Christ died, and rose again, that He might be Lord both of

the dead and living.”[189] For observe, it is conveyed in these words,

that Jesus died that He might be Lord of the dead; and that He rose

again to be Lord not only of the dead, but also of the living. And the

apostle understands, undoubtedly, by the dead over whom Christ is to be

Lord, those who are so called in the first Epistle to the Corinthians,

“For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised

incorruptible;”[190] and by the living, those who are to be changed, and

who are different from the dead who are to be raised. And respecting the

living the words are these, “And we shall be changed;” an expression

which follows immediately after the statement, “The dead shall be raised

first.”[191] Moreover, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians,

describing the same change in different words, he says that they who

sleep are not the same as those who are alive; his language being, “I

would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them who are

asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we

believe that Jesus died, and rose again, even so them also that sleep in

Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the word of

the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord,

shall not prevent them that are asleep.”[192] The explanation which

appeared to us to be appropriate to this passage, we gave in the

exegetical remarks which we have made on the first Epistle to the

Thessalonians.

Footnote 186:

διηνεκῶς.

Footnote 187:

τὴν οἰκονομίαν τελέσαντος.

Footnote 188:

χρήσιμον δ’ οἶμαι πρὸς ἀπολογίαν τῶν προκειμένων.

Footnote 189:

Cf. Rom. xiv. 9.

Footnote 190:

1 Cor. xv. 52.

Footnote 191:

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

Footnote 192:

Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 13-15.

Chapter LXVI.

And be not surprised if all the multitudes who have believed on Jesus do

not behold His resurrection, when Paul, writing to the Corinthians, can

say to them, as being incapable of receiving greater matters, “For I

determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him

crucified;”[193] which is the same as saying, “Hitherto ye were not

able, neither yet now are ye able, for ye are still carnal.”[194] The

Scripture, therefore, doing everything by appointment of God, has

recorded of Jesus, that before His sufferings He appeared to all

indifferently, but not always; while after His sufferings He no longer

appeared to all in the same way, but with a certain discrimination which

measured out to each his due. And as it is related that “God appeared to

Abraham,” or to one of the saints, and this “appearance” was not a thing

of constant occurrence, but took place at intervals, and not to all, so

understand that the Son of God appeared in the one case on the same

principle that God appeared to the latter.[195]

Footnote 193:

1 Cor. ii. 2.

Footnote 194:

Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 2, 3.

Footnote 195:

οὕτω μοι νόει καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὦφθαι τῇ παραπλησίᾳ εἰς τὸ περὶ

ἐκείνων, εἰς τὸ ὦφθαι αὐτοῖς τὸν Θεόν, κρίσει.

Chapter LXVII.

To the best of our ability, therefore, as in a treatise of this nature,

we have answered the objection, that “if Jesus had really wished to

manifest his divine power, he ought to have shown himself to those who

ill-treated him, and to the judge who condemned him, and to all without

reservation.” There was, however, no obligation on Him to appear either

to the judge who condemned Him, or to those who ill-treated Him. For

Jesus spared both the one and the other, that they might not be smitten

with blindness, as the men of Sodom were when they conspired against the

beauty of the angels entertained by Lot. And here is the account of the

matter: “But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house

to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men who were at the

door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they

wearied themselves to find the door.”[196] Jesus, accordingly, wished to

show that His power was divine to each one who was capable of seeing it,

and according to the measure of His capability. And I do not suppose

that He guarded against being seen on any other ground than from a

regard to the fitness of those who were incapable of seeing Him. And it

is in vain for Celsus to add, “For he had no longer occasion to fear any

man after his death, being, as you say, a God; nor was he sent into the

world at all for the purpose of being hid.” Yet He was sent into the

world not only to become known, but also to be hid. For all that He was,

was not known even to those to whom He was known, but a certain part of

Him remained concealed even from them; and to some He was not known at

all. And He opened the gates of light to those who were the sons of

darkness and of night, and had devoted themselves to becoming the sons

of light and of the day. For our Saviour Lord, like a good physician,

came rather to us who were full of sins, than to those who were

righteous.

Footnote 196:

Cf. Gen. xix. 10, 11.

Chapter LXVIII.

But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that, “if this at

least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought accordingly

to have at once disappeared from the cross.” Now this seems to me to be

like the argument of those who oppose the doctrine of providence, and

who arrange things differently from what they are, and allege that the

world would be better if it were as they arrange it. Now, in those

instances in which their arrangement is a possible one, they are proved

to make the world, so far as depends upon them, worse by their

arrangement than it actually is; while in those cases in which they do

not portray things worse than they really are, they are shown, to desire

impossibilities; so that in either case they are deserving of ridicule.

And here, accordingly, that there was no impossibility in His coming, as

a being of diviner nature, in order to disappear when He chose, is clear

from the very nature of the case; and is certain, moreover, from what is

recorded of Him, in the judgment of those who do not adopt certain

portions merely of the narrative that they may have ground for accusing

Christianity, and who consider other portions to be fiction. For it is

related in St. Luke’s Gospel, that Jesus after His resurrection took

bread, and blessed it, and breaking it, distributed it to Simon and

Cleopas; and when they had received the bread, “their eyes were opened,

and they knew Him, and He vanished out of their sight.”[197]

Footnote 197:

Cf. Luke xxiv. 30, 31.

Chapter LXIX.

But we wish to show that His instantaneous bodily disappearance from the

cross was not better fitted to serve the purposes of the whole economy

of salvation [than His remaining upon it was]. For the mere letter and

narrative of the events which happened to Jesus do not present the whole

view of the truth. For each one of them can be shown, to those who have

an intelligent apprehension of Scripture, to be a symbol of something

else. Accordingly, as His crucifixion contains a truth, represented in

the words, “I am crucified with Christ,” and intimated also in these,

“God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus

Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the

world;”[198] and as His death was necessary, because of the statement,

“For in that He died, He died unto sin once,”[199] and this, “Being made

conformable to His death,”[200] and this, “For if we be dead with Him,

we shall also live with Him:”[201] so also His burial has an application

to those who have been made conformable to His death, who have been both

crucified with Him, and have died with Him; as is declared by Paul, “For

we were buried with Him by baptism, and have also risen with Him.”[202]

These matters, however, which relate to His burial, and his sepulchre,

and him who buried Him, we shall expound at greater length on a more

suitable occasion, when it will be our professed purpose to treat of

such things. But, for the present, it is sufficient to notice the clean

linen in which the pure body of Jesus was to be enwrapped, and the new

tomb which Joseph had hewn out of the rock, where “no one was yet

lying,”[203] or, as John expresses it, “wherein was never man yet

laid.”[204] And observe whether the harmony of the three evangelists

here is not fitted to make an impression: for they have thought it right

to describe the tomb as one that was “quarried or hewn out of the rock;”

so that he who examines the words of the narrative may see something

worthy of consideration, both in them and in the _newness_ of the

tomb,—a point mentioned by Matthew and John,[205]—and in the statement

of Luke and John,[206] that no one had ever been interred therein

before. For it became Him, who was unlike other dead men (but who even

in death manifested signs of life in the water and the blood), and who

was, so to speak, a _new_ dead man, to be laid in a new and clean tomb,

in order that, as His birth was purer than any other (in consequence of

His being born, not in the way of ordinary generation, but of a virgin),

His burial also might have the purity symbolically indicated in His body

being deposited in a sepulchre which was new, not built of stones

gathered from various quarters, and having no natural unity, but

quarried and hewed out of _one_ rock, united together in all its parts.

Regarding the explanation, however, of these points, and the method of

ascending from the narratives themselves to the things which they

symbolized, one might treat more profoundly, and in a manner more

adapted to their divine character, on a more suitable occasion, in a

work expressly devoted to such subjects. The literal narrative, however,

one might thus explain, viz. that it was appropriate for Him who had

resolved to endure suspension upon the cross, to maintain all the

accompaniments of the character He had assumed, in order that He who as

a man had been put to death, and who as a man had died, might also as a

man be buried. But even if it had been related in the Gospels, according

to the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the

cross, he and other unbelievers would have found fault with the

narrative, and would have brought against it some such objection as

this: “Why, pray, did he disappear after he had been put upon the cross,

and not disappear before he suffered?” If, then, after learning from the

Gospels that He did not at once disappear from the cross, they imagine

that they can find fault with the narrative, because it did not invent,

as they consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous

disappearance, but gave a true account of the matter, is it not

reasonable that they should accord their faith also to His resurrection,

and should believe that He, according to His pleasure, on one occasion,

when the doors were shut, stood in the midst of His disciples, and on

another, after distributing bread to two of His acquaintances,

immediately disappeared from view, after He had spoken to them certain

words?

Footnote 198:

Cf. Gal. vi. 14.

Footnote 199:

Rom. vi. 10.

Footnote 200:

Phil. iii. 10.

Footnote 201:

2 Tim. ii. 11.

Footnote 202:

Cf. Rom. vi. 4.

Footnote 203:

Luke xxiii. 53, οὐκ ἦν οὔπω οὐδεὶς κείμενος.

Footnote 204:

John xix. 41, ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἐτέθη.

Footnote 205:

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

Footnote 206:

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

Chapter LXX.

But how is it that this Jew of Celsus could say that Jesus concealed

Himself? For his words regarding Him are these: “And who that is sent as

a messenger ever conceals himself when he ought to make known his

message?” Now, He did not conceal Himself, who said to those who sought

to apprehend Him, “I was daily teaching openly in the temple, and ye

laid no hold upon me.” But having once already answered this charge of

Celsus, now again repeated, we shall content ourselves with what we have

formerly said. We have answered, also, in the preceding pages, this

objection, that “while he was in the body, and no one believed upon him,

he preached to all without intermission; but when he might have produced

a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed

himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon

companions.”[207] Now it is not true that He showed Himself only to one

woman; for it is stated in the Gospel according to Matthew, that “in the

end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the

week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

And, behold, there had been a great earthquake: for the angel of the

Lord had descended from heaven, and come and rolled back the

stone.”[208] And, shortly after, Matthew adds: “And, behold, Jesus met

_them_”—clearly meaning the afore-mentioned Marys—“saying, All hail. And

they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.”[209] And we

answered, too, the charge, that “while undergoing his punishment he was

seen by all, but after his resurrection only by one,” when we offered

our defence of the fact that “He was not seen by all.” And now we might

say that His merely human attributes were visible to all men, but those

which were divine in their nature—I speak of the attributes not as

related, but as distinct[210]—were not capable of being received by all.

But observe here the manifest contradiction into which Celsus falls. For

having said, a little before, that Jesus had appeared secretly to one

woman and His own boon companions, he immediately subjoins: “While

undergoing his punishment he was seen by all men, but after his

resurrection by one, whereas the opposite ought to have happened.” And

let us hear what he means by “ought to have happened.” The being seen by

all men while undergoing His punishment, but after His resurrection only

by one individual, are opposites.[211] Now, so far as his language

conveys a meaning, he would have that to take place which is both

impossible and absurd, viz., that while undergoing His punishment He

should be seen only by one individual, but after His resurrection by all

men! or else how will you explain his words, “The opposite ought to have

happened?”

Footnote 207:

τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ θιασώταις.

Footnote 208:

Matt. xxviii. 1, 2.

Footnote 209:

Matt. xxviii. 9.

Footnote 210:

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

διαφοράν.

Footnote 211:

ἐναντίον τὸ μὲν κολαζόμενον πᾶσιν ἑωρᾶσθαι, ἀναστάντα δὲ πᾶσιν. The

Benedictine editor reads τὸν μὲν κολαζόμενον, and Bohereau proposes

ἐναντίον τῷ κολαζίόμενον μὲν, etc.

Chapter LXXI.

Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the words, “None knoweth

the Father but the Son;”[212] and in these, “No man hath seen God at any

time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath

declared Him.”[213] He, treating of Deity, stated to His true disciples

the doctrine regarding God; and we, discovering traces of such teaching

in the Scripture narratives, take occasion from such to aid our

theological conceptions,[214] hearing it declared in one passage, that

“God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all;”[215] and in

another, “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in

spirit and in truth.”[216] But the purposes for which the Father sent

Him are innumerable; and these any one may ascertain who chooses, partly

from the prophets who prophesied of Him, and partly from the narratives

of the evangelists. And not a few things also will he learn from the

apostles, and especially from Paul. Moreover, those who are pious He

leadeth to the light, and those who sin He will punish,—a circumstance

which Celsus not observing, has represented Him “as one who will lead

the pious to the light, and who will have mercy on others, whether they

sin or repent.”[217]

Footnote 212:

Cf. Luke x. 22.

Footnote 213:

John i. 18.

Footnote 214:

ὧν ἴχνη ἐν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις εὑρίσκοντες ἀφορμὰς ἔχομεν θεολογεῖν.

Footnote 215:

1 John i. 5.

Footnote 216:

John iv. 24.

Footnote 217:

The text is, τοὺς δὲ ἁμαρτάνοντας ἤ μεταγνόντας ἐλεήσων. Bohereau

would read μὴ μεταγνόντας, or would render the passage as if the

reading were ἤ ἁμαρτανόντας, ἤ μεταγνόντας. This suggestion has been

adopted in the translation.

Chapter LXXII.

After the above statements, he continues: “If he wished to remain hid,

why was there heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of

God? And if he did not seek to remain concealed, why was he punished? or

why did he die?” Now, by such questions he thinks to convict the

histories of discrepancy, not observing that Jesus neither desired all

things regarding Himself to be known to all whom He happened to meet,

nor yet all things to be unknown. Accordingly, the voice from heaven

which proclaimed Him to be the Son of God, in the words, “This is my

beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,”[218] is not stated to have been

audible to the multitudes, as this Jew of Celsus supposed. The voice

from the cloud on the high mountain, moreover, was heard only by those

who had gone up with Him. For the divine voice is of such a nature, as

to be heard only by those whom the speaker wishes to hear it. And I

maintain, that the voice of God which is referred to, is neither air

which has been struck, nor any concussion of the air, nor anything else

which is mentioned in treatises on the voice;[219] and therefore it is

heard by a better and more divine organ of hearing than that of sense.

And when the speaker will not have his voice to be heard by all, he that

has the finer ear hears the voice of God, while he who has the ears of

his soul deadened does not perceive that it is God who speaks. These

things I have mentioned because of his asking, “Why was there heard a

voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God?” while with

respect to the query, “Why was he punished, if he wished to remain hid?”

what has been stated at greater length in the preceding pages on the

subject of His sufferings may suffice.

Footnote 218:

Matt. iii. 17.

Footnote 219:

οὐδέπω δὲ λέγω, ὅτι οὐ πάντως ἐστὶν ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος, ἤ πληγὴ ἀέρος, ἤ

ὅτι ποτὲ λέγεται ἐν τοῖς περί φωνης.

Chapter LXXIII.

The Jew proceeds, after this, to state as a consequence what does not

follow from the premises; for it does _not_ follow from “His having

wished, by the punishments which He underwent, to teach us also to

despise death,” that after His resurrection He should openly summon all

men to the light, and instruct them in the object of His coming. For He

had formerly summoned all men to the light in the words, “Come unto me,

all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”[220]

And the object of His coming had been explained at great length in His

discourses on the beatitudes, and in the announcements which followed

them, and in the parables, and in His conversations with the scribes and

Pharisees. And the instruction afforded us by the Gospel of John, shows

that the eloquence of Jesus consisted not in words, but in deeds; while

it is manifest from the Gospel narratives that His speech was “with

power,” on which account also they marvelled at Him.

Footnote 220:

Cf. Matt. xi. 28.

Chapter LXXIV.

In addition to all this, the Jew further says: “All these statements are

taken from your own books, in addition to which we need no other

witness; for ye fall upon your own swords.”[221]

Now we have proved that many foolish assertions, opposed to the

narratives of our Gospels, occur in the statements of the Jew, either

with respect to Jesus or ourselves. And I do not think that he has shown

that “we fall upon our own swords;” but he only so imagines. And when

the Jew adds, in a general way, this to his former remarks: “O most high

and heavenly one! what God, on appearing to men, is received with

incredulity?” we must say to him, that according to the accounts in the

law of Moses, God is related to have visited the Hebrews in a most

public manner, not only in the signs and wonders performed in Egypt, and

also in the passage of the Red Sea, and in the pillar of fire and cloud

of light, but also when the Decalogue was announced to the whole people,

and yet was received with incredulity by those who saw these things: for

had they believed what they saw and heard, they would not have fashioned

the calf, nor changed their own glory into the likeness of a

grass-eating calf; nor would they have said to one another with

reference to the calf, “These be thy gods, O Israel, who brought thee up

out of the land of Egypt.”[222] And observe whether it is not entirely

in keeping with the character of the same people, who formerly refused

to believe such wonders and such appearances of divinity, throughout the

whole period of wandering in the wilderness, as they are recorded in the

law of the Jews to have done, to refuse to be convinced also, on

occasion of the glorious advent of Jesus, by the mighty words which were

spoken by Him with authority, and the marvels which He performed in the

presence of all the people.

Footnote 221:

αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς περιπίπτετε.

Footnote 222:

Cf. Ex. xxxii. 4.

Chapter LXXV.

I think what has been stated is enough to convince any one that the

unbelief of the Jews with regard to Jesus was in keeping with what is

related of this people from the beginning. For I would say in reply to

this Jew of Celsus, when he asks, “What God that appeared among men is

received with incredulity, and that, too, when appearing to those who

expect him? or why, pray, is he not recognised by those who have been

long looking for him?” what answer, friends, would you have us return to

your[223] questions? Which class of miracles, in your judgment, do you

regard as the greater? Those which were wrought in Egypt and the

wilderness, or those which we declare that Jesus performed among you?

For if the former are in your opinion greater than the latter, does it

not appear from this very fact to be in conformity with the character of

those who disbelieved the greater to despise the less? And this is the

opinion entertained with respect to our accounts of the miracles of

Jesus. But if those related of Jesus are considered to be as great as

those recorded of Moses, what strange thing has come to pass among a

nation which has manifested incredulity with regard to the commencement

of both dispensations?[224] For the beginning of the legislation was in

the time of Moses, in whose work are recorded the sins of the

unbelievers and wicked among you, while the commencement of our

legislation and second covenant is admitted to have been in the time of

Jesus. And by your unbelief of Jesus ye show that ye are the sons of

those who in the desert discredited the divine appearances; and thus

what was spoken by our Saviour will be applicable also to you who

believed not on Him: “Therefore ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds

of your fathers.”[225] And there is fulfilled among you also the

prophecy which said: “Your life shall hang in doubt before your eyes,

and you will have no assurance of your life.”[226] For ye did not

believe in the life which came to visit the human race.

Footnote 223:

The text reads ἡμῶν, for which Bohereau and the Benedictine editor

propose either ὑμᾶς or ἡμᾶς, the former of which is preferred by

Lommatzsch.

Footnote 224:

κατ’ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀπιστοῦντι.

Footnote 225:

Cf. Luke xi. 48.

Footnote 226:

Cf. Deut. xxviii. 66.

Chapter LXXVI.

Celsus, in adopting the character of a Jew, could not discover any

objections to be urged against the gospel which might not be retorted on

him as liable to be brought also against the law and the prophets. For

he censures Jesus in such words as the following: “He makes use of

threats, and reviles men on light grounds, when he says, ‘Woe unto you,’

and ‘I tell you beforehand.’ For by such expressions he manifestly

acknowledges his inability to persuade; and this would not be the case

with a God, or even a prudent man.” Observe, now, whether these charges

do not manifestly recoil upon the Jew. For in the writings of the law

and the prophets God makes use of threats and revilings, when He employs

language of not less severity than that found in the Gospel, such as the

following expressions of Isaiah: “Woe unto them that join house to

house, and lay field to field;”[227] and, “Woe unto them that rise up

early in the morning that they may follow strong drink;”[228] and, “Woe

unto them that draw their sins after them as with a long rope;”[229]

and, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;”[230] and, “Woe

unto those of you who are mighty to drink wine;”[231] and innumerable

other passages of the same kind. And does not the following resemble the

threats of which he speaks: “Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with

iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that are corrupters?”[232] and

so on, to which he subjoins such threats as are equal in severity to

those which, he says, Jesus made use of. For is it not a threatening,

and a great one, which declares, “Your country is desolate, your cities

are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence,

and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers?”[233] And are there not

revilings in Ezekiel directed against the people, when the Lord says to

the prophet, “Thou dwellest in the midst of scorpions?”[234] Were you

serious, then, Celsus, in representing the Jew as saying of Jesus, that

“he makes use of threats and revilings on slight grounds, when he

employs the expressions, ‘Woe unto you,’ and ‘I tell you beforehand?’”

Do you not see that the charges which this Jew of yours brings against

Jesus might be brought by him against God? For the God who speaks in the

prophetic writings is manifestly liable to the same accusations, as

Celsus regards them, of inability to persuade. I might, moreover, say to

this Jew, who thinks that he makes a good charge against Jesus by such

statements, that if he undertakes, in support of the scriptural account,

to defend the numerous curses recorded in the books of Leviticus and

Deuteronomy, we should make as good, or better, a defence of the

revilings and threatenings which are regarded as having been spoken by

Jesus. And as respects the law of Moses itself, we are in a position to

make a better defence of it than the Jew is, because we have been taught

by Jesus to have a more intelligent apprehension of the writings of the

law. Nay, if the Jew perceive the meaning of the prophetic Scriptures,

he will be able to show that it is for no light reason that God employs

threatenings and revilings, when He says, “Woe unto you,” and “I tell

you beforehand.” And how should God employ such expressions for the

conversion of men, which Celsus thinks that even a prudent man would not

have recourse to? But Christians, who know only one God—the same who

spoke in the prophets and in the Lord [Jesus]—can prove the

reasonableness of those threatenings and revilings, as Celsus considers

and entitles them. And here a few remarks shall be addressed to this

Celsus, who professes both to be a philosopher, and to be acquainted

with all our system. How is it, friend, when Hermes, in Homer, says to

Odysseus,

“Why, now, wretched man, do you come wandering alone over the

mountain-tops?”[235]

that you are satisfied with the answer, which explains that the Homeric

Hermes addresses such language to Odysseus to remind him of his

duty,[236] because it is characteristic of the Sirens to flatter and to

say pleasing things, around whom

“Is a huge heap of bones,”[237]

and who say,

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

whereas, if our prophets and Jesus Himself, in order to turn their

hearers from evil, make use of such expressions as “Woe unto you,” and

what you regard as revilings, there is no condescension in such language

to the circumstances of the hearers, nor any application of such words

to them as healing[239] medicine? Unless, indeed, you would have God, or

one who partakes of the divine nature, when conversing with men, to have

regard to His own nature alone, and to what is worthy of Himself, but to

have no regard to what is fitting to be brought before men who are under

the dispensation and leading of His word, and with each one of whom He

is to converse agreeably to his individual character. And is it not a

ridiculous assertion regarding Jesus, to say that He was unable to

persuade men, when you compare the state of matters not only among the

Jews, who have many such instances recorded in the prophecies, but also

among the Greeks, among whom all of those who have attained great

reputation for their wisdom have been unable to persuade those who

conspired against them, or to induce their judges or accusers to cease

from evil, and to endeavour to attain to virtue by the way of

philosophy?

Footnote 227:

Isa. v. 8.

Footnote 228:

Isa. v. 11.

Footnote 229:

Isa. v. 18.

Footnote 230:

Isa. v. 20.

Footnote 231:

Isa. v. 22.

Footnote 232:

Cf. Isa. i. 4.

Footnote 233:

Isa. i. 7.

Footnote 234:

Ezek. ii. 6.

Footnote 235:

Cf. _Odyss._ x. 281.

Footnote 236:

ὑπὲρ ἐπιστροφῆς.

Footnote 237:

Cf. _Odyss._ xii. 45.

Footnote 238:

_Ibid._ xii. 184.

Footnote 239:

παιώνιον φαρμάκον.

Chapter LXXVII.

After this the Jew remarks, manifestly in accordance with the Jewish

belief: “We certainly hope that there will be a bodily resurrection, and

that we shall enjoy an eternal life; and the example and archetype of

this will be He who is sent to us, and who will show that nothing is

impossible with God.” We do not know, indeed, whether the Jew would say

of the expected Christ, that He exhibits in Himself an example of the

resurrection; but let it be supposed that he both thinks and says so. We

shall give this answer, then, to him who has told us that he drew his

information from our own writings: “Did you read those writings, friend,

in which you think you discover matter of accusation against us, and not

find there the resurrection of Jesus, and the declaration that He was

the first-born from the dead? Or because you will not allow such things

to have been recorded, were they not actually recorded?” But as the Jew

still admits the resurrection of the body, I do not consider the present

a suitable time to discuss the subject with one who both believes and

says that there is a bodily resurrection, whether he has an

articulate[240] understanding of such a topic, and is able to plead well

on its behalf,[241] or not, but has only given his assent to it as being

of a legendary character.[242] Let the above, then, be our reply to this

Jew of Celsus. And when he adds, “Where, then, is he, that we may see

him and believe upon him?” we answer: Where is He now who spoke in the

prophecies, and who wrought miracles, that we may see and believe that

He is part of God? Are _you_ to be allowed to meet the objection, that

God does not perpetually show Himself to the Hebrew nation, while _we_

are not to be permitted the same defence with regard to Jesus, who has

both once risen Himself, and led His disciples to believe in His

resurrection, and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth, that they

show to all men by their sufferings how they are able to laugh at all

the troubles of life, beholding the life eternal and the resurrection

clearly demonstrated to them both in word and deed?

Footnote 240:

εἶτε διαρθροῦντα τὸ τοιοῦτον παρ’ ἑαυτῷ.

Footnote 241:

καὶ δυνάμενον πρεσβεῦσαι περὶ τοῦ λόγου καλῶς.

Footnote 242:

ἀττὰ μυθικώτερον συγκατατιθέμενον τῷ λόγῳ.

Chapter LXXVIII.

The Jew continues: “Did Jesus come into the world for this purpose, that

we should not believe him?” To which we immediately answer, that He did

not come with the object of producing incredulity among the Jews; but

knowing beforehand that such would be the result, He foretold it, and

made use of their unbelief for the calling of the Gentiles. For through

their sin salvation came to the Gentiles, respecting whom the Christ who

speaks in the prophecies says, “A people whom I did not know became

subject to me: they were obedient to the hearing of my ear;”[243] and,

“I was found of them who sought me not; I became manifest to those who

inquired not after me.”[244] It is certain, moreover, that the Jews were

punished even in this present life, after treating Jesus in the manner

in which they did. And let the Jews assert what they will when we charge

them with guilt, and say, “Is not the providence and goodness of God

most wonderfully displayed in your punishment, and in your being

deprived of Jerusalem, and of the sanctuary, and of your splendid

worship?” For whatever they may say in reply with respect to the

providence of God, we shall be able more effectually to answer it by

remarking, that the providence of God was wonderfully manifested in

using the transgression of that people for the purpose of calling into

the kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ, those from among the Gentiles

who were strangers to the covenant and aliens to the promises. And these

things were foretold by the prophets, who said that, on account of the

transgressions of the Hebrew nation, God would make choice, not of a

nation, but of individuals chosen from all lands;[245] and, having

selected the foolish things of the world, would cause an ignorant nation

to become acquainted with the divine teaching, the kingdom of God being

taken from the one and given to the other. And out of a larger number it

is sufficient on the present occasion to adduce the prediction from the

song in Deuteronomy regarding the calling of the Gentiles, which is as

follows, being spoken in the person of the Lord: “They have moved me to

jealousy with those who are not gods; they have provoked me to anger

with their idols: and I will move them to jealousy with those who are

not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.”[246]

Footnote 243:

Cf. 2 Sam. xxii. 44, 45.

Footnote 244:

Cf. Isa. lxv. 1.

Footnote 245:

οὐχὶ ἔθνος, ἀλλὰ λογάδας πανταχόθεν.

Footnote 246:

Cf. Deut. xxxii. 21.

Chapter LXXIX.

The conclusion of all these arguments regarding Jesus is thus stated by

the Jew: “He was therefore a man, and of such a nature, as the truth

itself proves, and reason demonstrates him to be.” I do not know,

however, whether a man who had the courage to spread throughout the

entire world his doctrine of religious worship and teaching,[247] could

accomplish what he wished without the divine assistance, and could rise

superior to all who withstood the progress of his doctrine—kings and

rulers, and the Roman senate, and governors in all places, and the

common people. And how could the nature of a man possessed of no

inherent excellence convert so vast a multitude? For it would not be

wonderful if it were only the wise who were so converted; but it is the

most irrational of men, and those devoted to their passions, and who, by

reason of their irrationality, change with the greater difficulty so as

to adopt a more temperate course of life. And yet it is because Christ

was the power of God and the wisdom of the Father that He accomplished,

and still accomplishes, such results, although neither the Jews nor

Greeks who disbelieve His word will so admit. And therefore we shall not

cease to believe in God, according to the precepts of Jesus Christ, and

to seek to convert those who are blind on the subject of religion,

although it is they who are truly blind themselves that charge us with

blindness: and they, whether Jews or Greeks, who lead astray those that

follow them, accuse us of seducing men—a good seduction, truly!—that

they may become temperate instead of dissolute, or at least may make

advances to temperance; may become just instead of unjust, or at least

may tend to become so; prudent instead of foolish, or be on the way to

become such; and instead of cowardice, meanness, and timidity, may

exhibit the virtues of fortitude and courage, especially displayed in

the struggles undergone for the sake of their religion towards God, the

Creator of all things. Jesus Christ therefore came announced beforehand,

not by one prophet, but by all; and it was a proof of the ignorance of

Celsus, to represent a Jew as saying that one prophet only had predicted

the advent of Christ. But as this Jew of Celsus, after being thus

introduced, asserting that these things were indeed in conformity with

his own law, has somewhere here ended his discourse, with a mention of

other matters not worthy of remembrance, I too shall here terminate this

second book of my answer to his treatise. But if God permit, and the

power of Christ abide in my soul, I shall endeavour in the third book to

deal with the subsequent statements of Celsus.

Footnote 247:

τὴν κατ’ αὐτὸν θεοσέβειαν καὶ διδασκαλίαν.

BOOK III.

Chapter I.

In the first book of our answer to the work of Celsus, who had

boastfully entitled the treatise which he had composed against us _A

True Discourse_, we have gone through, as you enjoined, my faithful

Ambrosius, to the best of our ability, his preface, and the parts

immediately following it, testing each one of his assertions as we went

along, until we finished with the tirade[248] of this Jew of his,

feigned to have been delivered against Jesus. And in the second book we

met, as we best could, all the charges contained in the invective of the

said Jew, which were levelled at us who are believers in God through

Christ; and now we enter upon this third division of our discourse, in

which our object is to refute the allegations which he makes in his own

person.

He gives it as his opinion, that “the controversy between Jews and

Christians is a most foolish one,” and asserts that “the discussions

which we have with each other regarding Christ differ in no respect from

what is called in the proverb ‘a fight about the shadow of an

ass;’”[249] and thinks that “there is nothing of importance[250] in the

investigations of the Jews and Christians: for both believe that it was

predicted by the Divine Spirit that one was to come as a Saviour to the

human race, but do not yet agree on the point whether the person

predicted has actually come or not.” For we Christians, indeed, have

believed in Jesus, as He who came according to the predictions of the

prophets. But the majority of the Jews are so far from believing in Him,

that those of them who lived at the time of His coming conspired against

Him; and those of the present day, approving of what the Jews of former

times dared to do against Him, speak evil of Him, asserting that it was

by means of sorcery[251] that he passed himself off for Him who was

predicted by the prophets as the One who was to come, and who was

called, agreeably to the traditions of the Jews,[252] the Christ.

Footnote 248:

δημηγορία; cf. book i. c. 71.

Footnote 249:

κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν καλουμένης ὄνου σκιᾶς μάχης. On this proverb, see

Zenobius, _Centuria Sexta_, adag. 28, and the note of Schottius. Cf.

also Suidas, _s.v._ ὄνου σκία.—DE LA RUE.

Footnote 250:

σεμνὸν.

Footnote 251:

διά τινος γοητείας.

Footnote 252:

κατὰ τὰ Ἰουδαίων πάτρια.

Chapter II.

But let Celsus, and those who assent to his charges, tell us whether it

is at all like “an ass’s shadow,” that the Jewish prophets should have

predicted the birth-place of Him who was to be the ruler of those who

had lived righteous lives, and who are called the “heritage” of

God;[253] and that Emmanuel should be conceived by a virgin; and that

such signs and wonders should be performed by Him who was the subject of

prophecy; and that His word should have such speedy course, that the

voice of His apostles should go forth into all the earth; and that He

should undergo certain sufferings after His condemnation by the Jews;

and that He should rise again from the dead. For was it by chance[254]

that the prophets made these announcements, with no persuasion of their

truth in their minds,[255] moving them not only to speak, but to deem

their announcements worthy of being committed to writing? And did so

great a nation as that of the Jews, who had long ago received a country

of their own wherein to dwell, recognise certain men as prophets, and

reject others as utterers of false predictions, without any conviction

of the soundness of the distinction? And was there no motive which

induced them to class with the books of Moses, which were held as

sacred, the words of those persons who were afterwards deemed to be

prophets? And can those who charge the Jews and Christians with folly,

show us how the Jewish nation could have continued to subsist, had there

existed among them no promise of the knowledge of future events? and

how, while each of the surrounding nations believed, agreeably to their

ancient institutions, that they received oracles and predictions from

those whom they accounted gods, this people alone, who were taught to

view with contempt all those who were considered gods by the heathen, as

not being gods, but demons, according to the declaration of the

prophets, “For all the gods of the nations are demons,”[256] had among

them no one who professed to be a prophet, and who could restrain such

as, from a desire to know the future, were ready to desert[257] to the

demons of other nations? Judge, then, whether it were not a necessity,

that as the whole nation had been taught to despise the deities of other

lands, they should have had an abundance of prophets, who made known

events which were of far greater importance in themselves,[258] and

which surpassed the oracles of all other countries.

Footnote 253:

τῶν χρηματιζόντων μερίδος Θεοῦ.

Footnote 254:

ἆρα γὰρ ὡς ἔτυχε.

Footnote 255:

σὺν οὐδεμιᾷ πιθανότητι.

Footnote 256:

Ps. xcvi. 5, δαιμόνια; “idols,” Auth. Vers. We have in this passage,

and in many others, the identification of the δαίμονες or gods of the

heathen with the δαίμονες or δαιμόνια, “evil spirits,” or angels,

supposed to be mentioned in Gen. vi. 2.

Footnote 257:

The reading in the text is αὐτομολεῖν, on which Bohereau, with whom

the Benedictine editor agrees, remarks that we must either read

αὐτομολήσοντας, or understand some such word as ἑτοίμους before

αὐτομολεῖν.

Footnote 258:

τὸ μεῖζον αὐτόθεν.

Chapter III.

In the next place, miracles were performed in all countries, or at least

in many of them, as Celsus himself admits, instancing the case of

Esculapius, who conferred benefits on many, and who foretold future

events to entire cities, which were dedicated to him, such as Tricca,

and Epidaurus, and Cos, and Pergamus; and along with Esculapius he

mentions Aristeas of Proconnesus, and a certain Clazomenian, and

Cleomedes of Astypalæa. But among the Jews alone, who say they are

dedicated to the God of all things, there was wrought no miracle or sign

which might help to confirm their faith in the Creator of all things,

and strengthen their hope of another and better life! But how can they

imagine such a state of things? For they would immediately have gone

over to the worship of those demons which gave oracles and performed

cures, and deserted the God who was believed, as far as words went,[259]

to assist them, but who never manifested to them His visible presence.

But if this result has not taken place, and if, on the contrary, they

have suffered countless calamities rather than renounce Judaism and

their law, and have been cruelly treated, at one time in Assyria, at

another in Persia, and at another under Antiochus, is it not in keeping

with the probabilities of the case[260] for those to suppose who do not

yield their belief to their miraculous histories and prophecies, that

the events in question could not be inventions, but that a certain

divine Spirit being in the holy souls of the prophets, as of men who

underwent any labour for the cause of virtue, _did_ move them to

prophesy some things relating to their contemporaries, and others to

their posterity, but chiefly regarding a certain personage who was to

come as a Saviour to the human race?

Footnote 259:

μέχρι λόγου.

Footnote 260:

πῶς οὐχὶ ἐξ εἰκότων κατασκευάζεται.

Chapter IV.

And if the above be the state of the case, how do Jews and Christians

search after “the shadow of an ass,” in seeking to ascertain from those

prophecies which they believe in common, whether He who was foretold has

come, or has not yet arrived, and is still an object of expectation? But

even suppose[261] it be granted to Celsus that it was not Jesus who was

announced by the prophets, then, even on such a hypothesis, the

investigation of the sense of the prophetic writings is no search after

“the shadow of an ass,” if he who was spoken of can be clearly pointed

out, and it can be shown both what sort of person he was predicted to

be, and what he was to do, and, if possible, when he was to arrive. But

in the preceding pages we have already spoken on the point of Jesus

being the individual who was foretold to be the Christ, quoting a few

prophecies out of a larger number. Neither Jews nor Christians, then,

are wrong in assuming that the prophets spoke under divine

influence;[262] but they are in error who form erroneous opinions

respecting Him who was expected by the prophets to come, and whose

person and character were made known in their “true discourses.”

Footnote 261:

καθ’ ὑπόθεσιν.

Footnote 262:

θεόθεν.

Chapter V.

Immediately after these points, Celsus, imagining that the Jews are

Egyptians by descent, and had abandoned Egypt, after revolting against

the Egyptian state, and despising the customs of that people in matters

of worship, says that “they suffered from the adherents of Jesus, who

believed in Him as the Christ, the same treatment which they had

inflicted upon the Egyptians; and that the cause which led to the new

state of things[263] in either instance was rebellion against the

state.” Now let us observe what Celsus has here done. The ancient

Egyptians, after inflicting many cruelties upon the Hebrew race, who had

settled in Egypt owing to a famine which had broken out in Judea,

suffered, in consequence of their injustice to strangers and suppliants,

that punishment which divine Providence had decreed was to fall on the

whole nation for having combined against an entire people, who had been

their guests, and who had done them no harm; and after being smitten by

plagues from God, they allowed them, with difficulty, and after a brief

period, to go wherever they liked, as being unjustly detained in

slavery. Because, then, they were a selfish people, who honoured those

who were in any degree related to them far more than they did strangers

of better lives, there is not an accusation which they have omitted to

bring against Moses and the Hebrews,—not altogether denying, indeed, the

miracles and wonders done by him, but alleging that they were wrought by

sorcery, and not by divine power. Moses, however, not as a magician, but

as a devout man, and one devoted to the God of all things, and a

partaker in the divine Spirit, both enacted laws for the Hebrews,

according to the suggestions of the Divinity, and recorded events as

they happened with perfect fidelity.

Footnote 263:

Τῆς καινοτομίας.

Chapter VI.

Celsus, therefore, not investigating in a spirit of impartiality the

facts, which are related by the Egyptians in one way, and by the Hebrews

in another, but being bewitched, as it were,[264] in favour of the

former, accepted as true the statements of those who had oppressed the

strangers, and declared that the Hebrews, who had been unjustly treated,

had departed from Egypt after revolting against the Egyptians,—not

observing how impossible it was for so great a multitude of rebellious

Egyptians to become a nation, which, dating its origin from the said

revolt, should change its language at the time of its rebellion, so that

those who up to that time made use of the Egyptian tongue, should

completely adopt, all at once, the language of the Hebrews! Let it be

granted, however, according to his supposition, that on abandoning Egypt

they did conceive a hatred also of their mother tongue,[265] how did it

happen that after so doing they did not rather adopt the Syrian or

Phœnician language, instead of preferring the Hebrew, which is different

from both? But reason seems to me to demonstrate that the statement is

false, which makes those who were Egyptians by race to have revolted

against Egyptians, and to have left the country, and to have proceeded

to Palestine, and occupied the land now called Judea. For Hebrew was the

language of their fathers before their descent into Egypt; and the

Hebrew letters, employed by Moses in writing those five books which are

deemed sacred by the Jews, were different from those of the Egyptians.

Footnote 264:

Προκαταληφθεὶς ὡς ὑπὸ φίλτρων τῶν Αἰγυπτίων.

Footnote 265:

Τὴν σύντροφον φωνὴν.

Chapter VII.

In like manner, as the statement is false “that the Hebrews, being

[originally] Egyptians, dated the commencement [of their political

existence] from the time of their rebellion,” so also is this, “that in

the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish

state, and became His followers;” for neither Celsus nor they who think

with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which

savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of

the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way

from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defence of

the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian

Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to

death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples

to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in

keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source,

to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the

Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws

of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was

their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their

persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into things, we may

say regarding the exodus from Egypt, that it is a miracle if a whole

nation _at once_ adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had been a

gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, “As they went

forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not

understand.”[266]

Footnote 266:

Cf. Ps. lxxxi. 5.

Chapter VIII.

In the following way, also, we may conclude that they who came out of

Egypt with Moses were not Egyptians; for if they had been Egyptians,

their _names_ also would be Egyptian, because in every language the

designations [of persons and things] are kindred to the language.[267]

But if it is certain, from the names being Hebrew, that the people were

not Egyptians,—and the Scriptures are full of Hebrew names, and these

bestowed, too, upon their children while they were in Egypt,—it is clear

that the Egyptian account is false, which asserts that they were

Egyptians, and went forth from Egypt with Moses. Now it is absolutely

certain[268] that, being descended, as the Mosaic history records, from

Hebrew ancestors, they employed a language from which they also took the

names which they conferred upon their children. But with regard to the

Christians, because they were taught not to avenge themselves upon their

enemies (and have thus observed laws of a mild and philanthropic

character); and because they would not, although able, have made war

even if they had received authority to do so,—they have obtained this

reward from God, that He has always warred in their behalf, and on

certain occasions has restrained those who rose up against them and

desired to destroy them. For in order to remind others, that by seeing a

_few_ engaged in a struggle for their religion, they also might be

better fitted to despise death, some, on special occasions, and these

individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake

of Christianity,—God not permitting the whole nation to be exterminated,

but desiring that it should continue, and that the whole world should be

filled with this salutary and religious doctrine. And again, on the

other hand, that those who were of weaker minds might recover their

courage and rise superior to the thought of death, God interposed His

providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an act of His will

alone all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither kings,

nor rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond

a certain point. Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus,

“that a revolt was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish

state, and subsequently of Christianity.”

Footnote 267:

Συγγενεῖς εἰσιν αἱ προσηγορίαι.

Footnote 268:

Σαφῶς ἐναργές.

Chapter IX.

But since he is manifestly guilty of falsehood in the statements which

follow, let us examine his assertion when he says, “If all men wished to

become Christians, the latter would not desire such a result.” Now that

the above statement is false is clear from this, that Christians do not

neglect, as far as in them lies, to take measures to disseminate their

doctrine throughout the whole world. Some of them, accordingly, have

made it their business to itinerate not only through cities, but even

villages and country houses,[269] that they might make converts to God.

And no one would maintain that they did this for the sake of gain, when

sometimes they would not accept even necessary sustenance; or if at any

time they were pressed by a necessity of this sort, were contented with

the mere supply of their wants, although many were willing to share

[their abundance] with them, and to bestow help upon them far above

their need. At the present day, indeed, when, owing to the multitude of

Christian believers, not only rich men, but persons of rank, and

delicate and high-born ladies, receive the teachers of Christianity,

some perhaps will dare to say that it is for the sake of a little

glory[270] that certain individuals assume the office of Christian

instructors. It is impossible, however, rationally to entertain such a

suspicion with respect to Christianity in its beginnings, when the

danger incurred, especially by its teachers, was great; while at the

present day the discredit attaching to it among the rest of mankind is

greater than any supposed honour enjoyed among those who hold the same

belief, especially when such honour is not shared by all. It is false,

then, from the very nature of the case, to say that “if all men wished

to become Christians, the latter would not desire such a result.”

Footnote 269:

Ἐπαύλεις.

Footnote 270:

Δοξάριον.

Chapter X.

But observe what he alleges as a proof of his statement: “Christians at

first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew

to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing

to have his own individual party:[271] for this was their object from

the beginning.” That Christians at first were few in number, in

comparison with the multitudes who subsequently became Christian, is

undoubted; and yet, all things considered, they were not so very

few.[272] For what stirred up the envy of the Jews against Jesus, and

aroused them to conspire against Him, was the great number of those who

followed Him into the wilderness,—five thousand men on one occasion, and

four thousand on another, having attended Him thither, without including

the women and children. For such was the charm[273] of Jesus’ words,

that not only were _men_ willing to follow Him to the wilderness, but

_women_ also, forgetting[274] the weakness of their sex and a regard for

outward propriety[275] in thus following their Teacher into desert

places. Children, too, who are altogether unaffected by such

emotions,[276] either following their parents, or perhaps attracted also

by His divinity, in order that it might be implanted within them, became

His followers along with their parents. But let it be granted that

Christians were few in number at the beginning, how does that help to

prove that Christians would be unwilling to make all men believe the

doctrine of the gospel?

Footnote 271:

στάσεις ἰδίας.

Footnote 272:

καί τοι οὐ πάντη ἦσαν ὀλίγοι.

Footnote 273:

ἴυγξ.

Footnote 274:

The reading in Spencer’s and the Benedictine edition is ὑποτεμνομένας,

for which Lommatzsch reads ὑπομεμνημένας.

Footnote 275:

καὶ τὸ δοκοῦν.

Footnote 276:

ἀπαθέστατα.

Chapter XI.

He says, in addition, that “all the Christians were of one mind,” not

observing, even in this particular, that from the beginning there were

differences of opinion among believers regarding the meaning[277] of the

books held to be divine. At all events, while the apostles were still

preaching, and while eye-witnesses of [the works of] Jesus were still

teaching His doctrine, there was no small discussion among the converts

from Judaism regarding Gentile believers, on the point whether they

ought to observe Jewish customs, or should reject the burden of clean

and unclean meats, as not being obligatory on those who had abandoned

their ancestral Gentile customs, and had become believers in Jesus. Nay,

even in the epistles of Paul, who was contemporary with those who had

seen Jesus, certain particulars are found mentioned as having been the

subject of dispute,—viz. respecting the resurrection,[278] and whether

it were already past, and the day of the Lord, whether it were nigh at

hand[279] or not. Nay, the very exhortation to “avoid profane and vain

babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some

professing, have erred concerning the faith,”[280] is enough to show

that from the very beginning, when, as Celsus imagines, believers were

few in number, there were certain doctrines interpreted in different

ways.[281]

Footnote 277:

Ἐκδοχήν.

Footnote 278:

Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 12 sqq.

Footnote 279:

Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 2.

Footnote 280:

Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 20.

Footnote 281:

Τινες παρεκδοχαὶ.

Chapter XII.

In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies

in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying that

“when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and

split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party;”

and further, that “being thus separated through their numbers, they

confute one another, still having, so to speak, one _name_ in common, if

indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are

yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different

ways by the various sects.” In reply to which, we say that heresies of

different kinds have never originated from any matter in which the

principle involved was not important and beneficial to human life. For

since the science of medicine is useful and necessary to the human race,

and many are the points of dispute in it respecting the manner of curing

bodies, there are found, for this reason, numerous heresies confessedly

prevailing in the science of medicine among the Greeks, and also, I

suppose, among those barbarous nations who profess to employ medicine.

And, again, since philosophy makes a profession of the truth, and

promises a knowledge of existing things with a view to the regulation of

life, and endeavours to teach what is advantageous to our race, and

since the investigation of these matters is attended with great

differences of opinion,[282] innumerable heresies have consequently

sprung up in philosophy, some of which are more celebrated than others.

Even Judaism itself afforded a pretext for the origination of heresies,

in the different acceptation accorded to the writings of Moses and those

of the prophets. So, then, seeing Christianity appeared an object of

veneration to men, not to the more servile class alone, as Celsus

supposes, but to many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary

pursuits,[283] there necessarily originated heresies,—not at all,

however, as the result of faction and strife, but through the earnest

desire of many literary men to become acquainted with the doctrines of

Christianity. The consequence of which was, that, taking in different

acceptations those discourses which were believed by all to be divine,

there arose heresies, which received their names from those individuals

who admired, indeed, the origin of Christianity, but who were led, in

some way or other, by certain plausible reasons, to discordant views.

And yet no one would act rationally in avoiding medicine because of its

heresies; nor would he who aimed at that which is seemly[284] entertain

a hatred of philosophy, and adduce its many heresies as a pretext for

his antipathy. And so neither are the sacred books of Moses and the

prophets to be condemned on account of the heresies in Judaism.

Footnote 282:

πολλὴν ἔχει διολκήν.

Footnote 283:

φιλολόγων.

Footnote 284:

τὸ πρέπον.

Chapter XIII.

Now, if these arguments hold good, why should we not defend, in the same

way, the existence of heresies in Christianity? And respecting these,

Paul appears to me to speak in a very striking manner when he says, “For

there must be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made

manifest among you.”[285] For as that man is “approved” in medicine who,

on account of his experience in various [medical] heresies, and his

honest examination of the majority of them, has selected the preferable

system,—and as the great proficient in philosophy is he who, after

acquainting himself experimentally with the various views, has given in

his adhesion to the best,—so I would say that the wisest Christian was

he who had carefully studied the heresies both of Judaism and

Christianity. Whereas he who finds fault with Christianity because of

its heresies would find fault also with the teaching of Socrates, from

whose school have issued many others of discordant views. Nay, the

opinions of Plato might be chargeable with error, on account of

Aristotle’s having separated from his school, and founded a new one,—on

which subject we have remarked in the preceding book. But it appears to

me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain heresies which do not

possess even the _name_ of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps he had heard

of the sects called Ophites and Cainites, or some others of a similar

nature, which had departed in all points from the teaching of Jesus. And

yet surely this furnishes no ground for a charge against the _Christian_

doctrine.

Footnote 285:

1 Cor. xi. 19.

Chapter XIV.

After this he continues: “Their union is the more wonderful, the more it

can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet rebellion is

a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which accrue from it,

and the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes which give

stability to their faith.” To this we answer, that our union does thus

rest upon a reason, or rather not upon a reason, but upon the divine

working,[286] so that its commencement was God’s teaching men, in the

prophetical writings, to expect the advent of Christ, who was to be the

Saviour of mankind. For in so far as this point is not really refuted

(although it may _seem_ to be by unbelievers), in the same proportion is

the doctrine commended as the doctrine of God, and Jesus shown to be the

Son of God both before and after His incarnation. I maintain, moreover,

that even after His incarnation, He is always found by those who possess

the acutest spiritual vision to be most God-like, and to have really

come down to us from God, and to have derived His origin or subsequent

development not from human wisdom, but from the manifestation[287] of

God within Him, who by His manifold wisdom and miracles established

Judaism first, and Christianity afterwards; and the assertion that

rebellion, and the advantages attending it, were the originating causes

of a doctrine which has converted and improved so many men was

effectually refuted.

Footnote 286:

θείας ἐνεργείας.

Footnote 287:

ἐπιφανείας.

Chapter XV.

But again, that it is not the fear of external enemies which strengthens

our union, is plain from the fact that this cause, by God’s will, has

already, for a considerable time, ceased to exist. And it is probable

that the secure existence, so far as regards the world, enjoyed by

believers at present, will come to an end, since those who calumniate

Christianity in every way are again attributing the present frequency of

rebellion to the multitude of believers, and to their not being

persecuted by the authorities as in old times. For we have learned from

the gospel neither to relax our efforts in days of peace, and to give

ourselves up to repose, nor, when the world makes war upon us, to become

cowards, and apostatize from the love of the God of all things which is

in Jesus Christ. And we clearly manifest the illustrious nature of our

origin, and do not (as Celsus imagines) conceal it, when we impress upon

the minds of our first converts a contempt for idols, and images of all

kinds, and, besides this, raise their thoughts from the worship of

created things instead of God, and elevate them to the universal

Creator; clearly showing Him to be the subject of prophecy, both from

the predictions regarding Him—of which there are many—and from those

traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are able

intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the

apostles.

Chapter XVI.

“But what the legends are of every kind which we gather together, or the

terrors which we invent,” as Celsus without proof asserts, he who likes

may show. I know not, indeed, what he means by “inventing terrors,”

unless it be our doctrine of God as Judge, and of the condemnation of

men for their deeds, with the various proofs derived partly from

Scripture, partly from probable reason. And yet—for truth is

precious—Celsus says, at the close, “Forbid that either I, or these, or

any other individual should ever reject the doctrine respecting the

future punishment of the wicked and the reward of the good!” What

terrors, then, if you except the doctrine of punishment, do we invent

and impose upon mankind? And if he should reply that “we weave together

erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources, and trumpet them aloud,

and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele clash their cymbals

in the ears of those who are being initiated in their mysteries;”[288]

we shall ask him in reply, “Erroneous opinions from what ancient

sources?” For, whether he refers to Grecian accounts, which taught the

existence of courts of justice under the earth, or Jewish, which, among

other things, predicted the life that follows the present one; he will

be unable to show that we who, striving to believe on grounds of reason,

regulate our lives in conformity with such doctrines, have failed

correctly to ascertain the truth.[289]

Footnote 288:

τὰ τοῦ παλαιοῦ λόγου παρακούσματα συμπλάττοντες, τούτοις

προκαταυλοῦμεν καὶ προκατηχοῦμεν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· ὡς οἱ τοὺς

κορυβαντιζομένους περιβομβοῦντες.

Footnote 289:

οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι παραστῆσαι, ὅτι ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐν παρακούσμασι γενόμενοι τῆς

ἀληθείας, ὅσοι γε πειρώμεθα μετὰ λόγου πιστεύειν, πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα

ζῶμεν δόγματα.

Chapter XVII.

He wishes, indeed, to compare the articles of our faith to those of the

Egyptians; “among whom, as you approach their sacred edifices, are to be

seen splendid enclosures, and groves, and large and beautiful

gateways,[290] and wonderful temples, and magnificent tents around them,

and ceremonies of worship full of superstition and mystery; but when you

have entered, and passed within, the object of worship is seen to be a

cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog!” Now, what is the

resemblance[291] between us and the splendours of Egyptian worship which

are seen by those who draw near their temples? And where is the

resemblance to those irrational animals which are worshipped within,

after you pass through the splendid gateways? Are our prophecies, and

the God of all things, and the injunctions against images, objects of

reverence in the view of Celsus also, and Jesus Christ crucified, the

analogue to the worship of the irrational animal? But if he should

assert this—and I do not think that he will maintain anything else—we

shall reply that we have spoken in the preceding pages at greater length

in defence of those charges affecting Jesus, showing that what appeared

to have happened to Him in the capacity of His human nature, was fraught

with benefit to all men, and with salvation to the whole world.

Footnote 290:

προπυλαίων μεγέθη τε καὶ κάλλη.

Footnote 291:

τὸ ἀνάλογον.

Chapter XVIII.

In the next place, referring to the statements of the Egyptians, who

talk loftily about irrational animals, and who assert that they are a

sort of symbols of God, or anything else which their prophets, so

termed, are accustomed to call them, Celsus says that “an impression is

produced in the minds of those who have learned these things; that they

have not been initiated in vain;”[292] while with regard to the truths

which are taught in our writings to those who have made progress in the

study of Christianity (through that which is called by Paul the gift

consisting in the “word of wisdom” through the Spirit, and in the “word

of knowledge” according to the Spirit), Celsus does not seem even to

have formed an idea,[293] judging not only from what he has already

said, but from what he subsequently adds in his attack upon the

Christian system, when he asserts that Christians “repel every wise man

from the doctrine of their faith, and invite only the ignorant and the

vulgar;” on which assertions we shall remark in due time, when we come

to the proper place.

Footnote 292:

φαντασίαν ἐξαποστέλλειν τοῖς ταῦτα μεμαθηκόσιν, ὅτι μὴ μάτην

μεμύηνται.

Footnote 293:

πεφαντάσθαι.

Chapter XIX.

He says, indeed, that “we ridicule the Egyptians, although they present

many by no means contemptible mysteries[294] for our consideration, when

they teach us that such rites are acts of worship offered to eternal

ideas, and not, as the multitude think, to ephemeral animals; and that

we are silly, because we introduce nothing nobler than the goats and

dogs of the Egyptian worship in our narratives about Jesus.” Now to this

we reply, “Good sir,[295] [suppose that] you are right in eulogizing the

fact that the Egyptians present to view many by no means contemptible

mysteries, and obscure explanations about the animals [worshipped] among

them, you nevertheless do not act consistently in accusing us as if you

believed that _we_ had nothing to state which was worthy of

consideration, but that all _our_ doctrines were contemptible and of no

account, seeing we unfold[296] the narratives concerning Jesus according

to the ‘wisdom of the word’ to those who are ‘perfect’ in Christianity.

Regarding whom, as being competent to understand the wisdom that is in

Christianity, Paul says: ‘We speak wisdom among them that are perfect;

yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who

come to nought, but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the

hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory, which

none of the princes of this world knew.’”[297]

Footnote 294:

αἰνίγματα.

Footnote 295:

ὦ γενναῖε.

Footnote 296:

διεξοδεύωμεν.

Footnote 297:

1 Cor. ii. 6-8.

Chapter XX.

And we say to those who hold similar opinions to those of Celsus: “Paul

then, we are to suppose, had before his mind the idea of no pre-eminent

wisdom when he professed to speak wisdom among them that are perfect?”

Now, as he spoke with his customary boldness when in making such a

profession he said that _he_ was possessed of no wisdom, we shall say in

reply: first of all examine the epistles of him who utters these words,

and look carefully at the meaning of each expression in them—say, in

those to the Ephesians, and Colossians, and Thessalonians, and

Philippians, and Romans,—and show two things, both that you understand

Paul’s words, and that you can demonstrate any of them to be silly or

foolish. For if any one give himself to their attentive perusal, I am

well assured either that he will be amazed at the understanding of the

man who can clothe great ideas in common language; or if he be not

amazed, he will only exhibit himself in a ridiculous light, whether he

simply state the meaning of the writer as if he had comprehended it, or

try to controvert and confute what he only imagined that he understood!

Chapter XXI.

And I have not yet spoken of the observance[298] of all that is written

in the Gospels, each one of which contains much doctrine difficult to be

understood, not merely by the multitude, but even by certain of the more

intelligent, including a very profound explanation of the parables which

Jesus delivered to “those without,” while reserving the exhibition of

their full meaning[299] for those who had passed beyond the stage of

exoteric teaching, and who came to Him privately in the house. And when

he comes to understand it, he will admire the reason why some are said

to be “without,” and others “in the house.” And again, who would not be

filled with astonishment that is able to comprehend the movements[300]

of Jesus; ascending at one time a mountain for the purpose of delivering

certain discourses, or of performing certain miracles, or for His own

transfiguration, and descending again to heal the sick and those who

were unable to follow Him whither His disciples went? But it is not the

appropriate time to describe at present the truly venerable and divine

contents of the Gospels, or the mind of Christ—that is, the wisdom and

the word—contained in the writings of Paul. But what we have said is

sufficient by way of answer to the unphilosophic sneers[301] of Celsus,

in comparing the inner mysteries of the church of God to the cats, and

apes, and crocodiles, and goats, and dogs of Egypt.

Footnote 298:

τηρήσεως.

Footnote 299:

σαφήνειαν.

Footnote 300:

μεταβάσεις.

Footnote 301:

ἀφιλόσοφον χλεύην.

Chapter XXII.

But this low jester[302] Celsus, omitting no species of mockery and

ridicule which can be employed against us, mentions in his treatise the

Dioscuri, and Hercules, and Æsculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed

by the Greeks to have become gods after being men, and says that “we

cannot bear to call such beings gods, because they were at first

men,[303] and yet they manifested many noble qualities, which were

displayed for the benefit of mankind, while we assert that Jesus was

seen after His death by His own followers;” and he brings against us an

additional charge, as if we said that “He was seen indeed, but was only

a shadow!” Now to this we reply, that it was very artful of Celsus not

here clearly to indicate that he did not regard these beings as gods,

for he was afraid of the opinion of those who might peruse his treatise,

and who might suppose him to be an atheist; whereas, if he had paid

respect to what appeared to him to be the truth, he would not have

_feigned_ to regard them as gods.[304] Now to either of the allegations

we are ready with an answer. Let us, accordingly, to those who do _not_

regard them as gods reply as follows: These beings, then, are not gods

at all; but agreeably to the view of those who think that the soul of

man perishes immediately [after death], the souls of these men also

perished; or according to the opinion of those who say that the soul

continues to subsist or is immortal, these men continue to exist or are

immortal, and they are not gods but heroes,—or not even heroes, but

simply souls. If, then, on the one hand, you suppose them _not_ to

exist, we shall have to prove the doctrine of the soul’s immortality,

which is to us a doctrine of pre-eminent importance;[305] if, on the

other, they _do_ exist, we have _still_ to prove[306] the doctrine of

immortality, not only by what the Greeks have so well said regarding it,

but also in a manner agreeable to the teaching of Holy Scripture. And we

shall demonstrate that it is impossible for those who were polytheists

during their lives to obtain a better country and position after their

departure from this world, by quoting the histories that are related of

them, in which is recorded the great dissoluteness of Hercules, and his

effeminate bondage with Omphale, together with the statements regarding

Æsculapius, that their Zeus struck him dead by a thunderbolt. And of the

Dioscuri, it will be said that they die often—

“At one time live on alternate days, and at another

Die, and obtain honour equally with the gods.”[307]

How, then, can they reasonably imagine that one of these is to be

regarded as a god or a hero?

Footnote 302:

βωμολόχος.

Footnote 303:

The reading in the text is καὶ πρῶτοι, for which Bohereau proposes τὸ

πρῶτον, which we have adopted in the translation.

Footnote 304:

We have followed in the translation the emendation of Guietus, who

proposed εἰ δὲ τὴν φαινομένην αὐτῷ ἀλήθειαν ἐπρέσβευσεν, οὐκ ἄν,

κ.τ.λ., instead of the textual reading, εἴ τε τῆς φαινομένης αὐτῷ

ἀληθείας ἐπρέσβευσεν, οὐκ ἄν, κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 305:

τὸν προηγούμενον ἡμῖν περὶ ψυχῆς κατασκευαστέον λόγον.

Footnote 306:

Bohereau conjectures, with great probability, that instead of

ἀποδέκτεον, we ought to read ἀποδεικτέον.

Footnote 307:

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

Chapter XXIII.

But we, in proving the facts related of our Jesus from the prophetic

Scriptures, and comparing afterwards His history with them, demonstrate

that no dissoluteness on his part is recorded. For even they who

conspired against Him, and who sought false witnesses to aid them, did

not find even any plausible grounds for advancing a false charge against

Him, so as to accuse Him of licentiousness; but His death was indeed the

result of a conspiracy, and bore no resemblance to the death of

Æsculapius by lightning. And what is there that is venerable in the

madman Dionysus, and his female garments, that _he_ should be worshipped

as a god? And if they who would defend such beings betake themselves to

allegorical interpretations, we must examine each individual instance,

and ascertain whether it is well founded,[308] and also in each

particular case, whether those beings can have a real existence, and are

deserving of respect and worship who were torn by the Titans, and cast

down from their heavenly throne. Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the

members of His own troop[309]—for I will take the word that Celsus

employs—did _really_ appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against

the gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. And let the

statements of their histories and that of Jesus be carefully compared

together. Will Celsus have the former to be true, but the latter,

although recorded by eye-witnesses who showed by their acts that they

clearly understood the nature of what they had seen, and who manifested

their state of mind by what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of

His gospel, to be inventions? Now, who is there that, desiring to act

always in conformity with right reason, would yield his assent at

random[310] to what is related of the one, but would rush to the history

of Jesus, and without examination refuse to believe what is recorded of

Him?[311]

Footnote 308:

εἰ τὸ ὑγιὲς ἔχουσιν.

Footnote 309:

θιασωταῖς.

Footnote 310:

ἀποκληρωτικῶς.

Footnote 311:

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

Chapter XXIV.

And again, when it is said of Æsculapius that a great multitude both of

Greeks and barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen, and

still see, no mere phantom, but Æsculapius himself, healing and doing

good, and foretelling the future; Celsus requires us to believe this,

and finds no fault with the believers in Jesus, when we express our

belief in such stories, but when we give our assent to the disciples,

and eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus, who clearly manifest the

honesty of their convictions (because we see their guilelessness, as far

as it is possible to see the conscience revealed in writing), we are

called by him a set of “silly” individuals, although he cannot

demonstrate that an incalculable[312] number, as he asserts, of Greeks

and barbarians acknowledge the existence of Æsculapius; while we, if we

deem this a matter of importance, can clearly show a countless multitude

of Greeks and barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus. And

some give evidence of their having received through this faith a

marvellous power by the cures which they perform, invoking no other name

over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, and

of Jesus, along with a mention of His history. For by these means we too

have seen many persons freed from grievous calamities, and from

distractions of mind,[313] and madness, and countless other ills, which

could be cured neither by men nor devils.

Footnote 312:

ἀμύθητον.

Footnote 313:

ἐκστάσεων.

Chapter XXV.

Now, in order to grant that there did exist a healing spirit named

Æsculapius, who used to cure the bodies of men, I would say to those who

are astonished at such an occurrence, or at the prophetic knowledge of

Apollo, that since the cure of bodies is a thing indifferent,[314] and a

matter within the reach not merely of the good,[315] but also of the

bad; and as the foreknowledge of the future is also a thing

indifferent—for the possessor of foreknowledge does not necessarily

manifest the possession of virtue—you must show that they who practise

healing or who foretell the future are in no respect wicked, but exhibit

a perfect pattern of virtue, and are not far from being regarded as

gods. But they will _not_ be able to show that they are virtuous who

practise the art of healing, or who are gifted with foreknowledge,

seeing many who are not fit to live are related to have been healed; and

these, too, persons whom, as leading improper lives, no wise physician

would wish to heal. And in the responses of the Pythian oracle also you

may find some injunctions which are not in accordance with reason, two

of which we will adduce on the present occasion; viz. when it gave

commandment that Cleomedes[316]—the boxer, I suppose—should be honoured

with divine honours, seeing some great importance or other attaching to

his pugilistic skill, but did not confer either upon Pythagoras or upon

Socrates the honours which it awarded to pugilism; and also when it

called Archilochus “the servant of the Muses”—a man who employed his

poetic powers upon topics of the most wicked and licentious nature, and

whose public character was dissolute and impure—and entitled him

“pious,”[317] in respect of his being the servant of the Muses, who are

deemed to be goddesses! Now I am inclined to think that no one would

assert that he was a “pious” man who was not adorned with all moderation

and virtue, or that a decorous[318] man would utter such expressions as

are contained in the unseemly[319] iambics of Archilochus. And if

nothing that is divine in itself is shown to belong either to the

healing skill of Æsculapius or the prophetic power of Apollo, how could

any one, even were I to grant that the facts are as alleged, reasonably

worship them as pure divinities?—and especially when the prophetic

spirit of Apollo, pure from any body of earth, secretly enters through

the private parts the person of her who is called the priestess, as she

is seated at the mouth of the Pythian cave![320] Whereas regarding Jesus

and His power we have no such notion; for the body which was born of the

Virgin was composed of human material, and capable of receiving human

wounds and death.

Footnote 314:

μέσον.

Footnote 315:

ἀστείους.

Footnote 316:

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

Footnote 317:

εὐσεβῆ.

Footnote 318:

κόσμιος.

Footnote 319:

οἱ μὴ σεμνοὶ.

Footnote 320:

ὅτε διὰ τοῦ Πυθίου στομίου περικαθεζομένῃ τῇ καλουμένῃ προφήτιδι

πνεῦμα διὰ τῶν γυναικείων ὑπεισέρχεται τὸ μαντικὸν, ὁ Ἀπόλλων, τὸ

καθαρὸν ἀπὸ γηΐνου σώματος. Boherellus conjectures τὸ μαντικὸν τοῦ

Ἀπόλλωνος τὸ καθαρόν.

Chapter XXVI.

Let us see what Celsus says next, when he adduces from history

marvellous occurrences, which in themselves seem to be incredible, but

which are not discredited by him, so far at least as appears from his

words. And, in the first place, regarding Aristeas of Proconnesus, of

whom he speaks as follows: “Then, with respect to Aristeas of

Proconnesus, who disappeared from among men in a manner so indicative of

divine intervention,[321] and who showed himself again in so

unmistakeable a fashion, and on many subsequent occasions visited many

parts of the world, and announced marvellous events, and whom Apollo

enjoined the inhabitants of Metapontium to regard as a god, no one

considers him to be a god.” This account he appears to have taken from

Pindar and Herodotus. It will be sufficient, however, at present to

quote the statement of the latter writer from the fourth book of his

histories, which is to the following effect: “Of what country Aristeas,

who made these verses, was, has already been mentioned, and I shall now

relate the account I heard of him in Proconnesus and Cyzicus. They say

that Aristeas, who was inferior to none of the citizens by birth,

entering into a fuller’s shop in Proconnesus, died suddenly, and that

the fuller, having closed his workshop, went to acquaint the relatives

of the deceased. When the report had spread through the city that

Aristeas was dead, a certain Cyzicenian, arriving from Artace, fell into

a dispute with those who made the report, affirming that he had met and

conversed with him on his way to Cyzicus, and he vehemently disputed the

truth of the report; but the relations of the deceased went to the

fuller’s shop, taking with them what was necessary for the purpose of

carrying the body away; but when the house was opened, Aristeas was not

to be seen, either dead or alive. They say that afterwards, in the

seventh year, he appeared in Proconnesus, composed those verses which by

the Greeks are now called Arimaspian, and having composed them,

disappeared a second time. Such is the story current in these cities.

But these things I know happened to the Metapontines in Italy 340 years

after the second disappearance of Aristeas, as I discovered by

computation in Proconnesus and Metapontium. The Metapontines say that

Aristeas himself, having appeared in their country, exhorted them to

erect an altar to Apollo, and to place near it a statue bearing the name

of Aristeas the Proconnesian; for he said that Apollo had visited their

country only of all the Italians, and that he himself, who was now

Aristeas, accompanied him; and that when he accompanied the god he was a

crow; and after saying this he vanished. And the Metapontines say they

sent to Delphi to inquire of the god what the apparition of the man

meant; but the Pythian bade them obey the apparition, and if they obeyed

it would conduce to their benefit. They accordingly, having received

this answer, fulfilled the injunctions. And now, a statue bearing the

name of Aristeas is placed near the image of Apollo, and around it

laurels are planted: the image is placed in the public square. Thus much

concerning Aristeas.”[322]

Footnote 321:

οὕτω δαιμονίως.

Footnote 322:

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

Chapter XXVII.

Now, in answer to this account of Aristeas, we have to say, that if

Celsus had adduced it as history, without signifying his own assent to

its truth, it is in a different way that we should have met his

argument. But since he asserts that he “disappeared through the

intervention of the divinity,” and “showed himself again in an

unmistakeable manner,” and “visited many parts of the world,” and “made

marvellous announcements;” and, moreover, that there was “an oracle of

Apollo, enjoining the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god,” he gives

the accounts relating to him as upon his own authority, and with his

full assent. And [this being the case], we ask, How is it possible that,

while supposing the marvels related by the disciples of Jesus regarding

their Master to be wholly fictitious, and finding fault with those who

believe them, you, O Celsus, do not regard these stories of yours to be

either products of jugglery[323] or inventions? And how,[324] while

charging others with an irrational belief in the marvels recorded of

Jesus, can you show yourself justified in giving credence to such

statements as the above, without producing some proof or evidence of the

alleged occurrences having taken place? Or do Herodotus and Pindar

appear to you to speak the truth, while they who have made it their

concern to _die_ for the doctrine of Jesus, and who have left to their

successors writings so remarkable on the truths which they believed,

entered upon a struggle for the sake of “fictions” (as you consider

them), and “myths,” and “juggleries,” which entails a life of danger and

a death of violence? Place yourself, then, as a neutral party, between

what is related of Aristeas and what is recorded of Jesus, and see

whether, from the result, and from the benefits which have accrued to

the reformation of morals, and to the worship of the God who is over all

things, it is not allowable to conclude that we must believe the events

recorded of Jesus not to have happened without the divine intervention,

but that this was not the case with the story of Aristeas the

Proconnesian.

Footnote 323:

τερατείαν.

Footnote 324:

Guietus conjectures, καὶ πῶς, ὦ λῷστε.

Chapter XXVIII.

For with what purpose in view did Providence accomplish the marvels

related of Aristeas? And to confer what benefit upon the human race did

such remarkable events, as you regard them, take place? You cannot

answer. But we, when we relate the events of the history of Jesus, have

no ordinary defence to offer for their occurrence;—this, viz., that God

desired to commend the doctrine of Jesus as a doctrine which was to save

mankind, and which was based, indeed, upon the apostles as foundations

of the rising[325] edifice of Christianity, but which increased in

magnitude also in the succeeding ages, in which not a few cures are

wrought in the name of Jesus, and certain other manifestations of no

small moment have taken place. Now what sort of person is Apollo, who

enjoined the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god? And with what

object does he do this? And what advantage was he procuring to the

Metapontines from this divine worship, if they were to regard him as a

god, who a little ago was a mortal? And yet the recommendations of

Apollo (viewed by us as a demon who has obtained the honour of libation

and sacrificial odours[326]) regarding this Aristeas appear to you to be

worthy of consideration; while those of the God of all things, and of

His holy angels, made known beforehand through the prophets—not _after_

the birth of Jesus, but _before_ He appeared among men—do not stir you

up to admiration, not merely of the prophets who received the Divine

Spirit, but of Him also who was the object of their predictions, whose

entrance into life was so clearly predicted many years beforehand by

numerous prophets, that the whole Jewish people who were hanging in

expectation of the coming of Him who was looked for, did, after the

advent of Jesus, fall into a keen dispute with each other; and that a

great multitude of them acknowledged Christ, and believed Him to be the

object of prophecy, while others did not believe in Him, but, despising

the meekness of those who, on account of the teaching of Jesus, were

unwilling to cause even the most trifling sedition, dared to inflict on

Jesus those cruelties which His disciples have so truthfully and

candidly recorded, without secretly omitting from their marvellous

history of Him what seems to the multitude to bring disgrace upon the

doctrine of Christianity. But both Jesus Himself and His disciples

desired that His followers should believe not merely in His Godhead and

miracles, as if He had not also been a partaker of human nature, and had

assumed the human flesh which “lusteth against the Spirit;”[327] but

they saw also that the power which had descended into human nature, and

into the midst of human miseries, and which had assumed a human soul and

body, contributed through faith, along with its divine elements, to the

salvation of believers,[328] when they see that from Him there began the

union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by

communion with the divine, might rise to be divine, not in Jesus alone,

but in all those who not only believe, but[329] enter upon the life

which Jesus taught, and which elevates to friendship with God and

communion with Him every one who lives according to the precepts of

Jesus.

Footnote 325:

τῆς καταβαλλομένης οἰκοδομῆς.

Footnote 326:

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

Footnote 327:

ὡς οὐ κοινωνήσαντος τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει, οὐδ’ ἀναλαβόντος τὴν ἐν

ἀνθρώποις σάρκα ἐπιθυμοῦσαν κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος.

Footnote 328:

Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν καταβᾶσαν εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνας

περιστάσεις δύναμιν, καὶ ἀναλαβοῦσαν ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀνθρώπινον, ἑώρων

ἐκ τοῦ πιστεύεσθαι μετὰ τῶν θειοτέρων συμβαλλομένην εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῖς

πιστεύουσιν.

Footnote 329:

μετὰ τοῦ πιστεύειν. Others read, μετὰ τὸ πιστεύειν.

Chapter XXIX.

According to Celsus, then, Apollo wished the Metapontines to treat

Aristeas as a god. But as the Metapontines considered the evidence in

favour of Aristeas being a man—and probably not a virtuous one—to be

stronger than the declaration of the oracle to the effect that he was a

god or worthy of divine honours, they for that reason would not obey

Apollo, and consequently no one regarded Aristeas as a god. But with

respect to Jesus we would say that, as it was of advantage to the human

race to accept him as the Son of God—God come in a human soul and

body—and as this did not seem to be advantageous to the gluttonous

appetites[330] of the demons which love bodies, and to those who deem

them to be gods on that account, the demons that are on earth (which are

supposed to be gods by those who are not instructed in the nature of

demons), and also their worshippers, were desirous to prevent the spread

of the doctrine of Jesus; for they saw that the libations and odours in

which they greedily delighted were being swept away by the prevalence of

the instructions of Jesus. But the God who sent Jesus dissipated all the

conspiracies of the demons, and made the gospel of Jesus to prevail

throughout the whole world for the conversion and reformation of men,

and caused churches to be everywhere established in opposition to those

of superstitious and licentious and wicked men; for such is the

character of the multitudes who constitute the citizens[331] in the

assemblies of the various cities. Whereas the churches of God which are

instructed by Christ, when carefully contrasted with the assemblies of

the districts in which they are situated, are as beacons[332] in the

world; for who would not admit that even the inferior members of the

church, and those who in comparison with the better are less worthy, are

nevertheless more excellent than many of those who belong to the

assemblies in the different districts?

Footnote 330:

λιχνείᾳ.

Footnote 331:

τοιαῦτα γὰρ τὰ πανταχοῦ πολιτευόμενα ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν πόλεων

πλήθη.

Footnote 332:

φωστῆρες.

Chapter XXX.

For the church[333] of God, _e.g._ which is at Athens, is a meek and

stable body, as being one which desires to please God, who is over all

things; whereas the assembly[334] of the Athenians is given to sedition,

and is not at all to be compared to the church of God in that city. And

you may say the same thing of the church of God at Corinth, and of the

assembly of the Corinthian people; and also of the church of God at

Alexandria, and of the assembly of the people of Alexandria. And if he

who hears this be a candid man, and one who investigates things with a

desire to ascertain the truth, he will be filled with admiration of Him

who not only conceived the design, but also was able to secure in all

places the establishment of churches of God alongside[335] of the

assemblies of the people in each city. In like manner, also, in

comparing the council[336] of the church of God with the council in any

city, you would find that certain councillors[337] of the church are

worthy to rule in the city of God, if there be any such city in the

whole world;[338] whereas the councillors in all other places exhibit in

their characters no quality worthy of the conventional[339] superiority

which they appear to enjoy over their fellow-citizens. And so, too, you

must compare the ruler of the _church_ in each city with the ruler of

the _people_ of the city, in order to observe that even amongst those

councillors and rulers of the church of God who come very far short of

their duty, and who lead more indolent lives than others who are more

energetic, it is nevertheless possible to discover a general superiority

in what relates to the progress of virtue over the characters of the

councillors and rulers in the various cities.[340]

Footnote 333:

ἐκκλησία.

Footnote 334:

ἐκκλησία.

Footnote 335:

παροικούσας.

Footnote 336:

βουλὴν.

Footnote 337:

βουλευταὶ.

Footnote 338:

εὕροις ἂν τίνες μὲν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βουλευταὶ ἄξιοί εἰσιν, εἴ τίς ἐστιν

ἐν τῷ πάντι πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ἐκεινῇ πολιτεύεσθαι. Boherellus

conjectures εὕροις ἂν ὅτι τινὲς μὲν, κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 339:

τῆς ἐκ κατατάξεως ὑπεροχῆς.

Footnote 340:

ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα ἀποτυγχανομένων βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων

ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, καὶ ῥαθυμότερον παρὰ τοὺς εὐτονωτέρως βιοῦντας, οὐδὲν

ἧττόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ὡς ἐπίπαν ὑπεροχὴν, τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς

προκοπῇ, παρὰ τὰ ἤθη τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων.

Boherellus conjectures ῥαθυμότερων.

Chapter XXXI.

Now if these things be so, why should it not be consistent with reason

to hold with regard to Jesus, who was able to effect results so great,

that there dwelt in _Him_ no ordinary divinity? while this was not the

case either with the Proconnesian Aristeas (although Apollo would have

him regarded as a god), or with the other individuals enumerated by

Celsus when he says, “No one regards Abaris the Hyperborean as a god,

who was possessed of such power as to be borne along like an arrow from

a bow.”[341] For with what object did the deity who bestowed upon this

Hyperborean Abaris the power of being carried along like an arrow,

confer upon him such a gift? Was it that the human race might be

benefited thereby,[342] or did he himself obtain any advantage from the

possession of such a power?—always supposing it to be conceded that

these statements are not wholly inventions, but that the thing actually

happened through the co-operation of some demon. But if it be recorded

that my Jesus was received up into glory,[343] I perceive the divine

arrangement[344] in such an act, viz. because God, who brought this to

pass, commends in this way the Teacher to those who witnessed it, in

order that as men who are contending not for human doctrine, but for

divine teaching, they may devote themselves as far as possible to the

God who is over all, and may do all things in order to please Him, as

those who are to receive in the divine judgment the reward of the good

or evil which they have wrought in this life.

Footnote 341:

ὥστε ὀϊστῷ βέλει συμφέρεσθαι. Spencer and Bohereau would delete βέλει

as a gloss.

Footnote 342:

Guietus would insert ἤ before ἵνα τὶ ὠφεληθῇ. This emendation is

adopted in the translation.

Footnote 343:

Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Footnote 344:

τὴν οἰκονομίαν.

Chapter XXXII.

But as Celsus next mentions the case of the Clazomenian, subjoining to

the story about him this remark, “Do they not report that his soul

frequently quitted his body, and flitted about in an incorporeal form?

and yet men did not regard him as a god,” we have to answer that

probably certain wicked demons contrived that such statements should be

committed to writing (for I do not believe that they contrived that such

a thing should actually _take place_), in order that the predictions

regarding Jesus, and the discourses uttered by Him, might either be evil

spoken of, as inventions like these, or might excite no surprise, as not

being more remarkable than other occurrences. But my Jesus said

regarding His own soul (which was separated from the body, not by virtue

of any human necessity, but by the miraculous power which was given Him

also for this purpose): “No one taketh my life from me, but I lay it

down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it

again.”[345] For as He had power to lay it down, He laid it down when He

said, “Father, why hast Thou forsaken me? And when He had cried with a

loud voice, He gave up the ghost,”[346] anticipating the public

executioners of the crucified, who break the legs of the victims, and

who do so in order that their punishment may not be further prolonged.

And He “took His life,” when He manifested Himself to His disciples,

having in their presence foretold to the unbelieving Jews, “Destroy this

temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,”[347] and “He spake

this of the temple of His body;” the prophets, moreover, having

predicted such a result in many other passages of their writings, and in

this, “My flesh also shall rest in hope: for Thou wilt not leave my soul

in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer thine holy One to see

corruption.”[348]

Footnote 345:

Cf. John x. 18.

Footnote 346:

Cf. Matt. xxvii. 46-50.

Footnote 347:

Cf. John ii. 19.

Footnote 348:

Ps. xvi. 9, 10.

Chapter XXXIII.

Celsus, however, shows that he has read a good many Grecian histories,

when he quotes further what is told of Cleomedes of Astypalea, “who,” he

relates, “entered into an ark, and although shut up within it, was not

found therein, but through some arrangement of the divinity, flew out,

when certain persons had cut open the ark in order to apprehend him.”

Now this story, if an invention, as it appears to be, cannot be compared

with what is related of Jesus, since in the lives of such men there is

found no indication of their possessing the divinity which is ascribed

to them; whereas the divinity of Jesus is established both by the

existence of the churches of the saved,[349] and by the prophecies

uttered concerning Him, and by the cures wrought in His name, and by the

wisdom and knowledge which are in Him, and the deeper truths which are

discovered by those who know how to ascend from a simple faith, and to

investigate the meaning which lies in the divine Scriptures, agreeably

to the injunctions of Jesus, who said, “Search the Scriptures,”[350] and

to the wish of Paul, who taught that “we ought to know how to answer

every man;”[351] nay, also of him who said, “Be ready always to give an

answer to every man that asketh of you a reason of the faith[352] that

is in you.”[353] If he wishes to have it conceded, however, that it is

not a fiction, let him show with what object this supernatural power

made him, through some arrangement of the divinity, flee from the ark.

For if he will adduce any reason worthy of consideration, and point out

any purpose worthy of God in conferring such a power on Cleomedes, we

will decide on the answer which we ought to give; but if he fail to say

anything convincing on the point, clearly because no reason _can_ be

discovered, then we shall either speak slightingly of the story to those

who have not accepted it, and charge it with being false, or we shall

say that some demoniac power, casting a glamour over the eyes, produced,

in the case of the Astypalean, a result like that which is produced by

the performers of juggling tricks,[354] while Celsus thinks that with

respect to him he has spoken like an oracle, when he said that “by some

divine arrangement he flew away from the ark.”

Footnote 349:

τῶν ὠφελουμένων.

Footnote 350:

John v. 39.

Footnote 351:

Cf. Col. iv. 6.

Footnote 352:

πίστεως.

Footnote 353:

1 Pet. iii. 15.

Footnote 354:

ἤτοι διαβαλοῦμεν τοῖς αὐτὴν μὴ παραδεξαμένοις, καὶ ἐγκαλέσομεν τῇ

ἱστορίᾳ ὡς οὐκ ἀληθεῖ· ἤ δαιμόνιόν τι φήσομεν παραπλήσιον τοῖς

ἐπιδεικνυμένοις γόησιν ἀπατῇ ὀφθαλμῶν πεποιηκέναι καὶ περὶ τὸν

Ἀστυπαλαιέα. Spencer in his edition includes μὴ in brackets, and

renders, “Aut eos incusabimus, qui istam virtutem admiserint.”

Chapter XXXIV.

I am, however, of opinion that these individuals are the only instances

with which Celsus was acquainted. And yet, that he might appear

voluntarily to pass by other similar cases, he says, “And one might name

many others of the same kind.” Let it be granted, then, that many such

persons have existed who conferred no benefit upon the human race: what

would each one of their acts be found to amount to in comparison with

the work of Jesus, and the miracles related of Him, of which we have

already spoken at considerable length? He next imagines that, “in

worshipping him who,” as _he_ says, “was taken prisoner and put to

death, we are acting like the Getæ who worship Zamolxis, and the

Cilicians who worship Mopsus, and the Acarnanians who pay divine honours

to Amphilochus, and like the Thebans who do the same to Amphiaraus, and

the Lebadians to Trophonius.” Now in these instances we shall prove that

he has compared us to the foregoing without good grounds. For these

different tribes erected temples and statues to those individuals above

enumerated, whereas we have refrained from offering to the divinity

honour by any such means (seeing they are adapted rather to demons,

which are somehow fixed in a certain place which they prefer to any

other, or which take up their dwelling, as it were, after being removed

[from one place to another] by certain rites and incantations), and are

lost in reverential wonder at Jesus, who has recalled our minds from all

sensible things, as being not only corruptible, but destined to

corruption, and elevated them to honour the God who is over all with

prayers and a righteous life, which we offer to Him as being

intermediate between the nature of the uncreated and that of all created

things,[355] and who bestows upon us the benefits which come from the

Father, and who as High Priest conveys our prayers to the supreme God.

Footnote 355:

οἳς προσάγομεν αὐτῷ, ὡς διὰ μεταξὺ ὄντος τῆς τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ τῆς τῶν

γενητῶν πάντων φύσεως. “Hoeschel (itemque Spencerus ad marg.)

suspicabatur legendum: ὡς δὴ μεταξὺ ὄντος. Male. Nihil mutari necesse

est. Agitur quippe de precibus, quas offerimus Deo ‘per eum, qui

veluti medius est inter increatam naturam et creatam.’”—RUÆUS.

Chapter XXXV.

But I should like, in answer to him who for some unknown reason advances

such statements as the above, to make in a conversational way[356] some

such remarks as the following, which seem not inappropriate to him. Are

then those persons whom you have mentioned nonentities, and is there no

power in Lebadea connected with Trophonius, nor in Thebes with the

temple of Amphiaraus, nor in Acarnania with Amphilochus, nor in Cilicia

with Mopsus? Or is there in such persons some being, either a demon, or

a hero, or even a god, working works which are beyond the reach of man?

For if he answer that there is nothing either demoniacal or divine about

these individuals more than others, then let him at once make known his

own opinion, as being that of an Epicurean, and of one who does not hold

the same views with the Greeks, and who neither recognises demons nor

worships gods as do the Greeks; and let it be shown that it was to no

purpose that he adduced the instances previously enumerated (as if he

believed them to be true), together with those which he adds in the

following pages. But if he will assert that the persons spoken of are

either demons, or heroes, or even gods, let him notice that he will

establish by what he has admitted a result which he does not desire,

viz. that Jesus also was some such being; for which reason, too, he was

able to demonstrate to not a few that He had come down from God to visit

the human race. And if he once admit this, see whether he will not be

forced to confess that He is mightier than those individuals with whom

he classed Him, seeing none of the latter forbids the offering of honour

to the others; while He, having confidence in Himself, because He is

more powerful than all those others, forbids them to be received as

divine[357] because they are wicked demons, who have taken possession of

places on earth, through inability to rise to the purer and diviner

region, whither the grossnesses of earth and its countless evils cannot

reach.

Footnote 356:

ἀδολεσχῆσαι.

Footnote 357:

τὰς τουτῶν ἀποδοχὰς.

Chapter XXXVI.

But as he next introduces the case of the favourite of Adrian (I refer

to the accounts regarding the youth Antinous, and the honours paid him

by the inhabitants of the city of Antinous in Egypt), and imagines that

the honour paid to him falls little short of that which we render to

Jesus, let us show in what a spirit of hostility this statement is made.

For what is there in common between a life lived among the favourites of

Adrian, by one who did not abstain even from unnatural lusts, and that

of the venerable Jesus, against whom even they who brought countless

other charges, and who told so many falsehoods, were not able to allege

that He manifested, even in the slightest degree, any tendency to what

was licentious?[358] Nay, further, if one were to investigate, in a

spirit of truth and impartiality, the stories relating to Antinous, he

would find that it was due to the magical arts and rites of the

Egyptians that there was even the _appearance_ of his performing

anything [marvellous] in the city which bears his name, and that too

only after his decease,—an effect which is said to have been produced in

other temples by the Egyptians, and those who are skilled in the arts

which they practise. For they set up in certain places demons claiming

prophetic or healing power, and which frequently torture those who seem

to have committed any mistake about ordinary kinds of food, or about

touching the dead body of a man, that they may have the appearance of

alarming the uneducated multitude. Of this nature is the being that is

considered to be a god in Antinoopolis in Egypt, whose [reputed] virtues

are the lying inventions of some who live by the gain derived

therefrom;[359] while others, deceived by the demon placed there, and

others again convicted by a weak conscience, actually think that they

are paying a divine penalty inflicted by Antinous. Of such a nature also

are the mysteries which they perform, and the seeming predictions which

they utter. Far different from such are those of Jesus. For it was no

company of sorcerers, paying court to a king or ruler at his bidding,

who seemed to have made him a god; but the Architect of the universe

Himself, in keeping with the marvellously persuasive power of His

words,[360] commended Him as worthy of honour, not only to those men who

were well disposed, but to demons also, and other unseen powers, which

even at the present time show that they either fear the name of Jesus as

that of a being of superior power, or reverentially accept Him as their

legal ruler.[361] For if the commendation had not been given Him by God,

the demons would not have withdrawn from those whom they had assailed,

in obedience to the mere mention of His name.

Footnote 358:

ὡς κἂν τὸ τυχὸν ἀκολασίας κἂν ἐπ’ ὀλιγὸν γευσαμένου;

Footnote 359:

οὗ ἀρετὰς οἱ μέν τινες κυβευτικώτερον ζῶντες καταψεύδονται.

Footnote 360:

ἀκολούθως τῇ ἐν τῷ λέγειν τεραστίως πιστικῇ δυνάμει.

Footnote 361:

ὡς κατὰ νόμους αὐτῶν ἄρχοντος.

Chapter XXXVII.

The Egyptians, then, having been taught to worship Antinous, will, if

you compare him with Apollo or Zeus, endure such a comparison, Antinous

being magnified in their estimation through being classed with these

deities; for Celsus is clearly convicted of falsehood when he says,

“that they will not endure his being compared with Apollo or Zeus.”

Whereas Christians (who have learned that their eternal life consists in

knowing the only true God, who is over all, and Jesus Christ, whom He

has sent; and who have learned also that all the gods of the heathen are

greedy demons, which flit around sacrifices and blood, and other

sacrificial accompaniments,[362] in order to deceive those who have not

taken refuge with the God who is over all, but that the divine and holy

angels of God are of a different nature and will[363] from all the

demons on earth, and that they are known to those exceedingly few

persons who have carefully and intelligently investigated these matters)

will not endure a comparison to be made between them and Apollo or Zeus,

or any being worshipped with odours and blood and sacrifices; some of

them, so acting from their extreme simplicity, not being able to give a

reason for their conduct, but sincerely observing the precepts which

they have received; others, again, for reasons not to be lightly

regarded, nay, even of a profound description, and (as a Greek would

say) drawn from the inner nature of things;[364] and amongst the latter

of these God is a frequent subject of conversation, and those who are

honoured by God, through His only-begotten Word, with participation in

His divinity, and therefore also in His name. They speak much, too, both

regarding the angels of God and those who are opposed to the truth, but

have been deceived; and who, in consequence of being deceived, call them

gods or angels of God, or good demons, or heroes who have become such by

the transference into them of a good human soul.[365] And such

Christians will also show, that as in philosophy there are many who

appear to be in possession of the truth, who have yet either deceived

themselves by plausible arguments, or by rashly assenting to what was

brought forward and discovered by others; so also, among those souls

which exist apart from bodies, both angels and demons, there are some

which have been induced by plausible reasons to declare themselves gods.

And because it was impossible that the reasons of such things could be

discovered by men with perfect exactness, it was deemed safe that no

mortal should entrust himself to any being as to God, with the exception

of Jesus Christ, who is, as it were, the Ruler over all things, and who

both beheld these weighty secrets, and made them known to a few.

Footnote 362:

ἀποφορὰς.

Footnote 363:

προαιρέσεως.

Footnote 364:

ἐσωτερικῶν καὶ ἐποπτικῶν.

Footnote 365:

ἢ ἥρωας ἐκ μεταβολῆς συστάντας ἀγαθῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς.

Chapter XXXVIII.

The belief, then, in Antinous, or any other such person, whether among

the Egyptians or the Greeks, is, so to speak, unfortunate; while the

belief in Jesus would seem to be either a fortunate one, or the result

of thorough investigation, having the appearance of the former to the

multitude, and of the latter to exceedingly few.[366] And when I speak

of a certain belief being, as the multitude would call it, unfortunate,

I in such a case refer the cause to God, who knows the reasons of the

various fates allotted to each one who enters human life. The Greeks,

moreover, will admit that even amongst those who are considered to be

most largely endowed with wisdom, good fortune has had much to do, as in

the choice of teachers of one kind rather than another, and in meeting

with a better class of instructors (there being teachers who taught the

most opposite doctrines), and in being brought up in better

circumstances; for the bringing up of many has been amid surroundings of

such a kind, that they were prevented from ever receiving any idea of

better things, but constantly passed their life, from their earliest

youth, either as the favourites of licentious men or of tyrants, or in

some other wretched condition which forbade the soul to look upwards.

And the causes of these varied fortunes, according to all probability,

are to be found in the reasons of providence, though it is not easy for

men to ascertain these; but I have said what I have done by way of

digression from the main body of my subject, on account of the proverb,

that “such is the power of faith, because it seizes that which first

presents itself.”[367] For it was necessary, owing to the different

methods of education, to speak of the differences of belief among men,

some of whom are more, others less fortunate in their belief; and from

this to proceed to show that what is termed good or bad fortune would

appear to contribute, even in the case of the most talented, to their

appearing to be more fully endowed with reason, and to give their assent

on grounds of reason to the majority of human opinions. But enough on

these points.

Footnote 366:

περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἤτοι δόξασα ἂν εἶναι εὐτυχὴς, ἢ καὶ βεβασανισμένως

ἐξητασμένη, δοκοῦσα μὲν εὐτυχὴς παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς, βεβασανισμένως δὲ

ἐξητασμένη παρὰ πάνυ ὀλιγωτάτοις.

Footnote 367:

τοσοῦτον ποιεῖ πίστις, ὁποία δὴ προκατασχοῦσα.

Chapter XXXIX.

We must notice the remarks which Celsus next makes, when he says to us,

that “faith, having taken possession of our minds, makes us yield the

assent which we give to the doctrine of Jesus;” for of a truth it is

faith which does produce such an assent. Observe, however, whether that

faith does not of itself exhibit what is worthy of praise, seeing we

entrust ourselves to the God who is over all, acknowledging our

gratitude to Him who has led us to such a faith, and declaring that He

could not have attempted or accomplished such a result without the

divine assistance. And we have confidence also in the intentions of the

writers of the Gospels, observing their piety and conscientiousness,

manifested in their writings, which contain nothing that is spurious, or

deceptive,[368] or false, or cunning; for it is evident to us that souls

unacquainted with those artifices which are taught by the cunning

sophistry of the Greeks (which is characterized by great plausibility

and acuteness), and by the kind of rhetoric in vogue in the courts of

justice, would not have been able thus to invent occurrences which are

fitted of themselves to conduct to faith, and to a life in keeping with

faith. And I am of opinion that it was on this account that Jesus wished

to employ such persons as teachers of His doctrines, viz. that there

might be no ground for any suspicion of plausible sophistry, but that it

might clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding, that the

guileless purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked with great

simplicity, was deemed worthy of being accompanied by a diviner power,

which accomplished far more than it seemed possible could be

accomplished by a periphrasis of words, and a weaving of sentences,

accompanied by all the distinctions of Grecian art.

Footnote 368:

κυβευτικόν.

Chapter XL.

But observe whether the principles of our faith, harmonizing with the

general ideas implanted in our minds at birth, do not produce a change

upon those who listen candidly to its statements; for although a

perverted view of things, with the aid of much instruction to the same

effect, has been able to implant in the minds of the multitude the

belief that images are gods, and that things made of gold, and silver,

and ivory, and stone are deserving of worship, yet common sense[369]

forbids the supposition that God is at all a piece of corruptible

matter, or is honoured when made to assume by men a form embodied in

dead matter, fashioned according to some image or symbol of His

appearance. And therefore we say at once of images that they are not

gods, and of such creations (of art) that they are not to be compared

with the Creator, but are small in contrast with the God who is over

all, and who created, and upholds, and governs the universe. And the

rational soul recognising, as it were, its relationship [to the divine],

at once rejects what it for a time supposed to be gods, and resumes its

natural love[370] for its Creator; and because of its affection towards

Him, receives Him also who first presented these truths to all nations

through the disciples whom He had appointed, and whom He sent forth,

furnished with divine power and authority, to proclaim the doctrine

regarding God and His kingdom.

Footnote 369:

ἡ κοινὴ ἔννοια.

Footnote 370:

φίλτρον φυσικὸν.

Chapter XLI.

But since he has charged us, I know not how often already, “with

regarding this Jesus, who was but a mortal body, as a God, and with

supposing that we act piously in so doing,” it is superfluous to say any

more in answer to this, as a great deal has been said in the preceding

pages. And yet let those who make this charge understand that He whom we

regard and believe to have been from the beginning God, and the Son of

God, is the very Logos, and the very Wisdom, and the very Truth; and

with respect to His mortal body, and the human soul which it contained,

we assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but by their

unity and intermixture,[371] they received the highest powers, and after

participating in His divinity, were changed into God. And if any one

should feel a difficulty at our saying this regarding His body, let him

attend to what is said by the Greeks regarding matter, which, properly

speaking, being without qualities, receives such as the Creator desires

to invest it with, and which frequently divests itself of those which it

formerly possessed, and assumes others of a different and higher kind.

And if these opinions be correct, what is there wonderful in this, that

the mortal quality of the body of Jesus, if the providence of God has so

willed it, should have been changed into one that was ethereal and

divine?

Footnote 371:

ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει.

Chapter XLII.

Celsus, then, does not speak as a good reasoner,[372] when he compares

the mortal flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, asserting that

the former is more liable to corruption than the latter. For, to speak

correctly, that which is incorruptible is not more free from corruption

than another thing which is incorruptible, nor that which is corruptible

more liable to corruption than another corruptible thing. But, admitting

that there are degrees of corruptibility, we can say in answer, that if

it is possible for the matter which underlies all qualities to exchange

some of them, how should it be impossible for the flesh of Jesus also to

exchange qualities, and to become such as it was proper for a body to be

which had its abode in the ether and the regions above it, and

possessing no longer the infirmities belonging to the flesh, and those

properties which Celsus terms “impurities,” and in so terming them,

speaks unlike a philosopher? For that which is properly impure, is so

because of its wickedness. Now the nature of body is not impure; for in

so far as it is bodily nature, it does not possess vice, which is the

generative principle of impurity. But, as he had a suspicion of the

answer which we would return, he says with respect to the change of the

body of Jesus, “Well, after he has laid aside these qualities, he will

be a God:” [and if so], why not rather Æsculapius, and Dionysus, and

Hercules? To which we reply, “What great deed has Æsculapius, or

Dionysus, or Hercules wrought?” And what individuals will they be able

to point out as having been improved in character, and made better by

their words and lives, so that they may make good their claim to be

gods? For let us peruse the many narratives regarding them, and see

whether they were free from licentiousness, or injustice, or folly, or

cowardice. And if nothing of that kind be found in them, the argument of

Celsus might have force, which places the forenamed individuals upon an

equality with Jesus. But if it is certain that, although some things are

reported of them as reputable, they are recorded, nevertheless, to have

done innumerable things which are contrary to right reason, how could

you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting

aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?

Footnote 372:

διαλεκτικὸς.

Chapter XLIII.

He next says of us, that “we ridicule those who worship Jupiter, because

his tomb is pointed out in the island of Crete; and yet we worship him

who rose from the tomb,[373] although ignorant of the grounds[374] on

which the Cretans observe such a custom.” Observe now that he thus

undertakes the defence of the Cretans, and of Jupiter, and of his tomb,

alluding obscurely to the allegorical notions, in conformity with which

the myth regarding Jupiter is said to have been invented; while he

assails us who acknowledge that our Jesus has been buried, indeed, but

who maintain that He has also been _raised_ from the tomb,—a statement

which the Cretans have not yet made regarding Jupiter. But since he

appears to admit that the tomb of Jupiter is in Crete, when he says that

“we are ignorant of the grounds on which the Cretans observe such a

custom,” we reply that Callimachus the Cyrenian, who had read

innumerable poetic compositions, and nearly the whole of Greek history,

was not acquainted with any allegorical meaning which was contained in

the stories about Jupiter and his tomb; and accordingly he accuses the

Cretans in his hymn addressed to Jupiter, in the words:[375]

“The Cretans are always liars: for thy tomb, O king,

The Cretans have reared; and yet thou didst not die,

For thou ever livest.”

Now he who said, “Thou didst not die, for thou ever livest,” in denying

that Jupiter’s tomb was in Crete, records nevertheless that in Jupiter

there was the beginning of death.[376] But birth upon earth is the

beginning of death. And his words run:

“And Rhea bore thee among the Parrhasians;”—

whereas he ought to have seen, after denying that the birth of Jupiter

took place in Crete because of his tomb, that it was quite congruous

with his birth in Arcadia that he who was born should also die. And the

following is the manner in which Callimachus speaks of these things: “O

Jupiter, some say that thou wert born on the mountains of Ida, others in

Arcadia. Which of them, O father, have lied? The Cretans are always

liars,” etc. Now it is Celsus who made us discuss these topics, by the

unfair manner in which he deals with Jesus, in giving his assent to what

is related about His death and burial, but regarding as an invention His

resurrection from the dead, although this was not only foretold by

innumerable prophets, but many proofs also were given of His having

appeared after death.

Footnote 373:

τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ τάφου.

Footnote 374:

οὐκ εἰδότες πῶς καὶ καθὸ.

Footnote 375:

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

Footnote 376:

τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ θανάτου γεγονέναι περὶ τὸν Δία.

Chapter XLIV.

After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of

Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not

of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class,

and asserts that “the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no

one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for

such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any

ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let

them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such

individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they

desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the

stupid, with women and children.” In reply to which, we say that, as if,

while Jesus teaches continence, and says, “Whosoever looketh upon a

woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his

heart,” one were to behold a few of those who are deemed to be

Christians living licentiously, he would most justly blame them for

living contrary to the teaching of Jesus, but would act most

unreasonably if he were to charge the gospel with their censurable

conduct; so, if he found nevertheless that the doctrine of the

Christians invites men to wisdom, the blame then must remain with those

who rest in their own ignorance, and who utter, not what Celsus relates

(for although some of them are simple and ignorant, they do not speak so

shamelessly as he alleges), but other things of much less serious

import, which, however, serve to turn aside men from the practice of

wisdom.

Chapter XLV.

But that the object of Christianity[377] is that we should become wise,

can be proved not only from the ancient Jewish writings, which _we_ also

use, but especially from those which were composed after the time of

Jesus, and which are believed among the churches to be divine. Now, in

the fiftieth Psalm, David is described as saying in his prayer to God

these words: “The unseen and secret things of Thy wisdom Thou hast

manifested to me.”[378] Solomon, too, because he asked for wisdom,

received it; and if any one were to peruse the Psalms, he would find the

book filled with many maxims of wisdom; and the evidences of his wisdom

may be seen in his treatises, which contain a great amount of wisdom

expressed in few words, and in which you will find many laudations of

wisdom, and encouragements towards obtaining it. So wise, moreover, was

Solomon, that “the queen of Sheba, having heard his name, and the name

of the Lord, came to try him with difficult questions, and spake to him

all things, whatsoever were in her heart; and Solomon answered her all

her questions. There was no question omitted by the king which he did

not answer her. And the queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon,

and the possessions which he had,[379] and there was no more spirit in

her.[380] And she said to the king, The report is true which I heard in

mine own land regarding thee and thy wisdom; and I believed not them who

told me, until I had come, and mine eyes have seen it. And, lo, they did

not tell me the half. Thou hast added wisdom and possessions above all

the report which I heard.”[381] It is recorded also of him, that “God

gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of

heart, even as the sand that is on the sea-shore. And the wisdom that

was in Solomon greatly excelled the wisdom of all the ancients, and of

all the wise men of Egypt; and he was wiser than all men, even than

Gethan the Ezrahite, and Emad, and Chalcadi, and Aradab, the sons of

Madi. And he was famous among all the nations round about. And Solomon

spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were five thousand. And he

spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop

which springeth out of the wall; and also of fishes and of beasts. And

all nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings

of the earth who had heard of the fame of his wisdom.”[382]

And to such a degree does the gospel desire that there should be wise

men among believers, that for the sake of exercising the understanding

of its hearers, it has spoken certain truths in enigmas, others in what

are called “dark” sayings, others in parables, and others in

problems.[383] And one of the prophets—Hosea—says at the end of his

prophecies: “Who is wise, and he will understand these things? or

prudent, and he shall know them?”[384] Daniel, moreover, and his

fellow-captives, made such progress in the learning which the wise men

around the king in Babylon cultivated, that they were shown to excel all

of them in a tenfold degree. And in the book of Ezekiel it is said to

the ruler of Tyre, who greatly prided himself on his wisdom, “Art thou

wiser than Daniel? Every secret was not revealed to thee.”[385]

Footnote 377:

ὁ λόγος.

Footnote 378:

τὰ ἄδηλα καὶ τὰ κρύφια τῆς σοφίας σου ἐδήλωσας μοι.

Footnote 379:

τὰ κατ’ αὐτόν.

Footnote 380:

καὶ ἐξ αὑτῆς ἐγένετο.

Footnote 381:

Cf. 1 Kings x. 1-9.

Footnote 382:

Cf. 1 Kings iv. 29-34. The text reads, περὶ πάντων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς

γῆς, for which παρὰ has been substituted.

Footnote 383:

καὶ ἄλλα διὰ προβλημάτων.

Footnote 384:

Hos. x. 9.

Footnote 385:

Cf. Ezek. xx. 3.

Chapter XLVI.

And if you come to the books written after the time of Jesus, you will

find that those multitudes of believers who hear the parables are, as it

were, “without,” and worthy only of exoteric doctrines, while the

disciples learn in private the explanation of the parables. For,

privately, to His own disciples did Jesus open up all things, esteeming

above the multitudes those who desired to know His wisdom. And He

promises to those who believe upon Him to send them wise men and

scribes, saying, “Behold, I will send unto you wise men and scribes, and

some of them they shall kill and crucify.”[386] And Paul also, in the

catalogue of “Charismata” bestowed by God, placed first “the word of

wisdom,” and second, as being inferior to it, “the word of knowledge,”

but third, and lower down, “faith.”[387] And because he regarded “the

word” as higher than miraculous powers, he for that reason places

“workings of miracles” and “gifts of healings” in a lower place than the

gifts of the word. And in the Acts of the Apostles Stephen bears witness

to the great learning of Moses, which he had obtained wholly from

ancient writings not accessible to the multitude. For he says: “And

Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.”[388] And

therefore, with respect to his miracles, it was suspected that he

wrought them perhaps, not in virtue of his professing to come from God,

but by means of his Egyptian knowledge, in which he was well versed. For

the king, entertaining such a suspicion, summoned the Egyptian

magicians, and wise men, and enchanters, who were found to be of no

avail as against the wisdom of Moses, which proved superior to all the

wisdom of the Egyptians.

Footnote 386:

Cf. Matt. xxiii. 34.

Footnote 387:

Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 8.

Footnote 388:

Acts vii. 22.

Chapter XLVII.

But it is probable that what is written by Paul in the First Epistle to

the Corinthians,[389] as being addressed to Greeks who prided themselves

greatly on their Grecian wisdom, has moved some to believe that it was

not the object of the gospel to win wise men. Now, let him who is of

this opinion understand that the gospel, as censuring wicked men, says

of them that they are wise not in things which relate to the

understanding, and which are unseen and eternal; but that in busying

themselves about things of sense alone, and regarding these as

all-important, they are wise men of the world: for as there are in

existence a multitude of opinions, some of them espousing the cause of

matter and bodies,[390] and asserting that everything is corporeal which

has a substantial existence,[391] and that besides these nothing else

exists, whether it be called invisible or incorporeal, it says also that

these constitute the wisdom of the world, which perishes and fades away,

and belongs only to this age, while those opinions which raise the soul

from things here to the blessedness which is with God, and to His

kingdom, and which teach men to despise all sensible and visible things

as existing only for a season, and to hasten on to things invisible, and

to have regard to those things which are not seen,—these, it says,

constitute the wisdom of God. But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of

certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are true, that

“although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were

thankful.”[392] And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too,

that this did not happen to them without divine permission, in these

words: “For God showed it unto them;”[393] dimly alluding, I think, to

those who ascend from things of sense to those of the understanding,

when he adds, “For the invisible things of God from the creation of the

world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,

even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither

were thankful.”[394]

Footnote 389:

Cf. 1 Cor. i. 18, etc.

Footnote 390:

τὰ μὲν συναγορεύοντα ὑλῇ καὶ σώμασι.

Footnote 391:

τὰ προηγουμένως ὑφεστηκότα.

Footnote 392:

Cf. Rom. i. 21.

Footnote 393:

Rom. i. 19.

Footnote 394:

Cf. Rom. i. 20-22.

Chapter XLVIII.

And perhaps also from the words, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how

that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,

are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to

confound the wise; and the base things, and the things which are

despised, hath God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to nought

things that are, that no flesh may glory in His presence;”[395] some

have been led to suppose that no one who is instructed, or wise, or

prudent, embraces the gospel. Now, in answer to such an one, we would

say that it has not been stated that “_no_ wise man according to the

flesh,” but that “not _many_ wise men according to the flesh,” are

called. It is manifest, further, that amongst the characteristic

qualifications of those who are termed “bishops,” Paul, in describing

what kind of man the bishop ought to be, lays down as a qualification

that he should also be a teacher, saying that he ought to be able to

convince the gainsayers, that by the wisdom which is in him he may stop

the mouths of foolish talkers and deceivers.[396] And as he selects for

the episcopate a man who has been once married[397] rather than he who

has twice entered the married state, and a man of blameless life rather

than one who is liable to censure, and a sober man rather than one who

is not such, and a prudent man rather than one who is not prudent, and a

man whose behaviour is decorous rather than he who is open to the charge

even of the slightest indecorum, so he desires that he who is to be

chosen by preference for the office of a bishop should be apt to teach,

and able to convince the gainsayers. How then can Celsus justly charge

us with saying, “Let no one come to us who is ‘instructed,’ or ‘wise,’

or ‘prudent?’” Nay, let him who wills come to us “instructed,” and

“wise,” and “prudent;” and none the less, if any one be ignorant and

unintelligent, and uninstructed and foolish, let him also come: for it

is these whom the gospel promises to cure, when they come, by rendering

them all worthy of God.

Footnote 395:

Cf. 1 Cor. i. 26-28.

Footnote 396:

Cf. Tit. i. 9, 10.

Footnote 397:

Μονόγαμον. Cf. _Can. Apost._ c. xvii.: “ὁ δυσὶ γάμοις συμπλακεὶς μετὰ

τὸ βάπτισμα, ἢ παλλακὴν κτησάμενος, οὐ δύναται εἶναι ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ

πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος, ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ.” Cf. note

in Benedictine ed.

Chapter XLIX.

This statement also is untrue, that it is “only foolish and low

individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women,

and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make

converts.” Such indeed does the gospel invite, in order to make them

better; but it invites also others who are very different from these,

since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that

believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and “He is the

propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but

also for the sins of the whole world.”[398] After this it is superfluous

for us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the

following: “For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have

studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance

of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why

should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be

better able to arrive at the truth?” Truly it is no evil to have been

educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those amongst

the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the

wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not

admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what

shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men

to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to _be_ wise,

but not to _seem_ so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the

knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have

studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than

Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean.

Footnote 398:

Cf. 1 John ii. 2.

Chapter L.

But let us see what those statements of his are which follow next in

these words: “Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in

the market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who gather

crowds around them, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor

dare to exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see young men,

and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent persons, thither

they thrust themselves in, and show themselves off.” Observe, now, how

he slanders us in these words, comparing us to those who in the

market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds

around them! What disreputable tricks, pray, do we perform? Or what is

there in _our_ conduct that resembles theirs, seeing that by means of

readings, and explanations of the things read, we lead men to the

worship of the God of the universe, and to the cognate virtues, and turn

them away from contemning Deity, and from all things contrary to right

reason? Philosophers verily would wish to collect together such hearers

of their discourses as exhort men to virtue,—a practice which certain of

the Cynics especially have followed, who converse publicly with those

whom they happen to meet. Will they maintain, then, that these who do

not gather together persons who are considered to have been educated,

but who invite and assemble hearers from the public street, resemble

those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and

gather crowds around them? Neither Celsus, however, nor any one who

holds the same opinions, will blame those who, agreeably to what they

regard as a feeling of philanthropy, address their arguments to the

ignorant populace.

Chapter LI.

And if they are not to be blamed for so doing, let us see whether

Christians do not exhort multitudes to the practice of virtue in a

greater and better degree than they. For the philosophers who converse

in public do not pick and choose their hearers, but he who likes stands

and listens. The Christians, however, having previously, so far as

possible, tested the souls of those who wish to become their hearers,

and having previously instructed[399] them in private, when they appear

(before entering the community) to have sufficiently evinced their

desire towards a virtuous life, introduce them then, and not before,

privately forming one class of those who are beginners, and are

receiving admission, but who have not yet obtained the mark of complete

purification; and another of those who have manifested to the best of

their ability their intention to desire no other things than are

approved by Christians; and among these there are certain persons

appointed to make inquiries regarding the lives and behaviour of those

who join them, in order that they may prevent those who commit acts of

infamy from coming into their public assembly, while those of a

different character they receive with their whole heart, in order that

they may daily make them better. And this is their method of procedure,

both with those who are sinners, and especially with those who lead

dissolute lives, whom they exclude from their community, although,

according to Celsus, they resemble those who in the market-places

perform the most shameful tricks. Now the venerable school of the

Pythagoreans used to erect a cenotaph to those who had apostatized from

their system of philosophy, treating them as dead; but the Christians

lament as dead those who have been vanquished by licentiousness or any

other sin, because they are lost and dead to God, and as being risen

from the dead (if they manifest a becoming change) they receive them

afterwards, at some future time, after a greater interval than in the

case of those who were admitted at first, but not placing in any office

or post of rank in the church of God those who, after professing the

gospel, lapsed and fell.

Footnote 399:

προεπάσαντες.

Chapter LII.

Observe now with regard to the following statement of Celsus, “We see

also those persons who in the market-places perform most disreputable

tricks, and collect crowds around them,” whether a manifest falsehood

has not been uttered, and things compared which have no resemblance. He

says that these individuals, to whom he compares us, who “perform the

most disreputable tricks in the market-places and collect crowds, would

never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to show off their

tricks before them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of

slaves, and a gathering of foolish people, thither do they thrust

themselves in and make a display.” Now, in speaking thus he does nothing

else than simply load us with abuse, like the women upon the public

streets, whose object is to slander one another; for we do everything in

our power to secure that our meetings should be composed of wise men,

and those things among us which are especially excellent and divine we

then venture to bring forward publicly in our discussions when we have

an abundance of intelligent hearers, while we conceal and pass by in

silence the truths of deeper import when we see that our audience is

composed of simpler minds, which need such instruction as is

figuratively termed “milk.”

Chapter LIII.

For the word is used by our Paul in writing to the Corinthians, who were

Greeks, and not yet purified in their morals: “I have fed you with milk,

not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now

are ye able, for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you

envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” Now the same

writer, knowing that there was a certain kind of nourishment better

adapted for the soul, and that the food of those young[400] persons who

were admitted was compared to milk, continues: “And ye are become such

as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth

milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But

strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by

reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and

evil.”[401] Would then those who believe these words to be well spoken,

suppose that the noble doctrines of our faith would never be mentioned

in an assembly of wise men, but that wherever [our instructors] see

young men, and a mob of slaves, and a collection of foolish individuals,

they bring publicly forward divine and venerable truths, and before such

persons make a display of themselves in treating of them? But it is

clear to him who examines the whole spirit of our writings, that Celsus

is animated with a hatred against the human race resembling that of the

ignorant populace, and gives utterance to these falsehoods without

examination.

Footnote 400:

νηπίων.

Footnote 401:

Heb. v. 12-14.

Chapter LIV.

We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so, that we

_do_ desire to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give to

young men the exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to show to

slaves how they may recover freedom of thought,[402] and be ennobled by

the word. And those amongst us who are the ambassadors of Christianity

sufficiently declare that they are debtors[403] to Greeks and

barbarians, to wise men and fools, (for they do not deny their

obligation to cure the souls even of foolish persons,) in order that as

far as possible they may lay aside their ignorance, and endeavour to

obtain greater prudence, by listening also to the words of Solomon: “Oh,

ye fools, be of an understanding heart,”[404] and “Who is the most

simple among you, let him turn unto me;”[405] and wisdom exhorts those

who are devoid of understanding in the words, “Come, eat of my bread,

and drink of the wine which I have mixed for you. Forsake folly that ye

may live, and correct understanding in knowledge.”[406] This too would I

say (seeing it bears on the point),[407] in answer to the statement of

Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? and do

they not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? and

do they not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then,

with philosophers who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue?

with Pythagoras for having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and

with those who recently encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy?

Is it indeed permissible for you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves

and foolish persons to the study of philosophy, but if _we_ do so, we do

not act from philanthropic motives in wishing to heal every rational

nature with the medicine of reason, and to bring them into fellowship

with God, the Creator of all things? These remarks, then, may suffice in

answer to what are slanders rather than accusations[408] on the part of

Celsus.

Footnote 402:

ἐλεύθερον ἀναλαβόντες φρόνημα.

Footnote 403:

Cf. Rom. i. 14.

Footnote 404:

Cf. Prov. viii. 5.

Footnote 405:

Cf. Prov. ix. 4.

Footnote 406:

Cf. Prov. ix. 5, 6.

Footnote 407:

διὰ τὰ ἐγκείμενα.

Footnote 408:

λοιδορίας μᾶλλον ἢ κατηγορίας.

Chapter LV.

But as Celsus delights to heap up calumnies against us, and, in addition

to those which he has already uttered, has added others, let us examine

these also, and see whether it be the Christians or Celsus who have

reason to be ashamed of what is said. He asserts, “We see, indeed, in

private houses workers in wool and leather, and fullers, and persons of

the most uninstructed and rustic character, not venturing to utter a

word in the presence of their elders and wiser masters;[409] but when

they get hold of the children privately, and certain women as ignorant

as themselves, they pour forth wonderful statements, to the effect that

they ought not to give heed to their father and to their teachers, but

should obey them; that the former are foolish and stupid, and neither

know nor can perform anything that is really good, being preoccupied

with empty trifles; that _they_ alone know how men ought to live, and

that, if the children obey them, they will both be happy themselves, and

will make their home happy also. And while thus speaking, if they see

one of the instructors of youth approaching, or one of the more

intelligent class, or even the father himself, the more timid among them

become afraid, while the more forward incite the children to throw off

the yoke, whispering that in the presence of father and teachers they

neither will nor can explain to them any good thing, seeing they turn

away with aversion from the silliness and stupidity of such persons as

being altogether corrupt, and far advanced in wickedness, and such as

would inflict punishment upon them; but that if they wish [to avail

themselves of their aid,] they must leave their father and their

instructors, and go with the women and their playfellows to the women’s

apartments, or to the leather shop, or to the fuller’s shop, that they

may attain to perfection;—and by words like these they gain them over.”

Footnote 409:

The allusion is to the practice of wealthy Greeks and Romans having

among their slaves artificers of various kinds, for whose service

there was constant demand in the houses and villas of the rich, and

who therefore had their residence in or near the dwelling of their

master. Many of these artificers seem, from the language of Celsus, to

have been converts to Christianity.

Chapter LVI.

Observe now how by such statements he depreciates those amongst us who

are teachers of the word, and who strive in every way to raise the soul

to the Creator of all things, and who show that we ought to despise

things “sensible,” and “temporal,” and “visible,” and to do our utmost

to reach communion with God, and the contemplation of things that are

“intelligent,” and “invisible,” and a blessed life with God, and the

friends of God; comparing them to “workers in wool in private houses,

and to leather-cutters, and to fullers, and to the most rustic of

mankind, who carefully incite young boys to wickedness, and women to

forsake their fathers and teachers, and follow them.” Now let Celsus

point out from what wise parent, or from what teachers, we keep away

children and women, and let him ascertain by comparison among those

children and women who are adherents of our doctrine, whether any of the

opinions which they formerly heard are better than ours, and in what

manner we draw away children and women from noble and venerable studies,

and incite them to worse things. But he will not be able to make good

any such charge against us, seeing that, on the contrary, we turn away

women from a dissolute life, and from being at variance with those with

whom they live, from all mad desires after theatres and dancing, and

from superstition; while we train to habits of self-restraint boys just

reaching the age of puberty, and feeling a desire for sexual pleasures,

pointing out to them not only the disgrace which attends those sins, but

also the state to which the soul of the wicked is reduced through

practices of that kind, and the judgments which it will suffer, and the

punishments which will be inflicted.

Chapter LVII.

But who are the teachers whom we call triflers and fools, whose defence

is undertaken by Celsus, as of those who teach better things? [I know

not,] unless he deem those to be good instructors of women, and no

triflers, who invite them to superstition and to unchaste spectacles,

and those, moreover, to be teachers not devoid of sense who lead young

men to the communion of all those disorderly acts which we know are

often committed by them. We indeed call away these also, as far as we

can, from the dogmas of philosophy to our worship of God, by showing

forth its excellence and purity. But as Celsus, by his statements, has

declared that we do not do so, but that we call only the foolish, I

would say to him, “If you had charged us with withdrawing from the study

of philosophy those who were already preoccupied with it, you would not

have spoken the truth, and yet your charge would have had an appearance

of probability; but when you now say that we draw away our adherents

from good teachers, show who are those other teachers save the teachers

of philosophy, or those who have been appointed to give instruction in

some useful branch of study.”[410]

He will be unable, however, to show any such; while we promise, openly

and not in secret, that _they_ will be happy who live according to the

word of God, and who look to Him in all things, and who do everything,

whatever it is, as if in the presence of God. Are these the instructions

of workers in wool, and of leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated

rustics? But such an assertion he cannot make good.

Footnote 410:

Παράστησον τοὺς διδασκάλους ἄλλους παρὰ τοὺς φιλοσοφίας διδασκάλους, ἢ

τοὺς κατὰ τὶ τῶν χρησίμων πεποιημένους.

Chapter LVIII.

But those who, in the opinion of Celsus, resemble the workers in wool in

private houses, and the leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated

rustics, will, he alleges, in the presence of father or teachers be

unwilling to speak, or unable to explain to the boys anything that is

good. In answer to which, we would say, What kind of father, my good

sir, and what kind of teacher, do you mean? If you mean one who approves

of virtue, and turns away from vice, and welcomes what is better, then

know, that with the greatest boldness will we declare our opinions to

the children, because we will be in good repute with such a judge. But

if, in the presence of a father who has a hatred of virtue and goodness,

we keep silence, and also before those who teach what is contrary to

sound doctrine, do not blame us for so doing, since you will blame us

without good reason. You, at all events, in a case where fathers deemed

the mysteries of philosophy an idle and unprofitable occupation for

their sons, and for young men in general, would not, in teaching

philosophy, make known its secrets before worthless parents; but,

desiring to keep apart those sons of wicked parents who had been turned

towards the study of philosophy, you would observe the proper seasons,

in order that the doctrines of philosophy might reach the minds of the

young men. And we say the same regarding our teachers. For if we turn

[our hearers] away from those instructors who teach obscene comedies and

licentious iambics, and many other things which neither improve the

speaker nor benefit the hearers (because the latter do not know how to

listen to poetry in a philosophic frame of mind, nor the former how to

say to each of the young men what tends to his profit), we are not, in

following such a course, ashamed to confess what we do. But if you will

show me teachers who train young men for philosophy, and who exercise

them in it, I will not from such turn away young men, but will try to

raise them, as those who have been previously exercised in the whole

circle of learning and in philosophical subjects, to the venerable and

lofty height of eloquence which lies hid from the multitude of

Christians, where are discussed topics of the greatest importance, and

where it is demonstrated and shown that they have been treated

philosophically both by the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus.

Chapter LIX.

Immediately after this, Celsus, perceiving that he has slandered us with

too great bitterness, as if by way of defence expresses himself as

follows: “That I bring no heavier charge than what the truth compels me,

any one may see from the following remarks. Those who invite to

participation in other mysteries, make proclamation as follows: ‘Every

one who has clean hands, and a prudent tongue;’[411] others again thus:

‘He who is pure from all pollution, and whose soul is conscious of no

evil, and who has lived well and justly.’ Such is the proclamation made

by those who promise purification from sins. But let us hear what kind

of persons these Christians invite. Every one, they say, who is a

sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak

generally, whoever is unfortunate, him will the kingdom of God receive.

Do you not call him a sinner, then, who is unjust, and a thief, and a

housebreaker, and a poisoner, and a committer of sacrilege, and a robber

of the dead? What others would a man invite if he were issuing a

proclamation for an assembly of robbers?” Now, in answer to such

statements, we say that it is not the same thing to invite those who are

_sick in soul_ to be _cured_, and those who are _in health_ to the

_knowledge_ and _study_ of divine things. We, however, keeping both

these things in view, at first invite all men to be healed, and exhort

those who are sinners to come to the consideration of the doctrines

which teach men not to sin, and those who are devoid of understanding to

those which beget wisdom, and those who are children to rise in their

thoughts to manhood, and those who are simply[412] unfortunate to good

fortune,[413] or—which is the more appropriate term to use—to

blessedness.[414] And when those who have been turned towards virtue

have made progress, and have shown that they have been purified by the

word, and have led as far as they can a better life, then and not before

do we invite them to participation in our mysteries. “For we speak

wisdom among them that are perfect.”[415]

Footnote 411:

φωνὴν συνετός.

Footnote 412:

ἁπλῶς.

Footnote 413:

εὐδαιμονίαν.

Footnote 414:

μακαριότητα.

Footnote 415:

Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6.

Chapter LX.

And as we teach, moreover, that “wisdom will not enter into the soul of

a base man, nor dwell in a body that is involved in sin,”[416] we say,

Whoever has clean hands, and therefore lifts up holy hands to God, and

by reason of being occupied with elevated and heavenly things, can say,

“The lifting up of my hands is as the evening sacrifice,”[417] let him

come to us; and whoever has a wise tongue through meditating on the law

of the Lord day and night, and by “reason of habit has his senses

exercised to discern between good and evil,” let him have no reluctance

in coming to the strong and rational sustenance which is adapted to

those who are athletes in piety and every virtue. And since the grace of

God is with all those who love with a pure affection the teacher of the

doctrines of immortality, whoever is pure not only from all defilement,

but from what are regarded as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly

initiated in the mysteries of Jesus, which properly are made known only

to the holy and the pure. The initiated of Celsus accordingly says, “Let

him whose soul is conscious of no evil come.” But he who acts as

initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus, will say to those who

have been purified in heart, “He whose soul has, for a long time, been

conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself to the

healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were

spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples.” Therefore in the

comparison which he institutes between the procedure of the initiators

into the Grecian mysteries, and the teachers of the doctrine of Jesus,

he does not know the difference between inviting the wicked to be

healed, and initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries!

Footnote 416:

Wisd. Solom. i. 4.

Footnote 417:

Cf. Ps. cxli. 2.

Chapter LXI.

Not to _participation in mysteries_, then, and to _fellowship in the

wisdom hidden in a mystery_, which God ordained before the world to the

glory of His saints,[418] do we invite the _wicked_ man, and the

_thief_, and the _housebreaker_, and the _poisoner_, and the _committer

of sacrilege_, and the _plunderer of the dead_, and all those others

whom Celsus may enumerate in his exaggerating style, but such as these

we invite to be _healed_. For there are in the divinity of the word some

helps towards the cure of those who are sick, respecting which the word

says, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are

sick;”[419] others, again, which to the pure in soul and body exhibit

“the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world

began, but now is made manifest by the Scriptures of the prophets,”[420]

and “by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,”[421] which “appearing”

is manifested to each one of those who are perfect, and which enlightens

the reason[422] in the true[423] knowledge of things. But as he

exaggerates the charges against us, adding, after his list of those vile

individuals whom he has mentioned, this remark, “What other persons

would a robber summon to himself by proclamation?” we answer such a

question by saying that a robber summons around him individuals of such

a character, in order to make use of their villany against the men whom

they desire to slay and plunder. A Christian, on the other hand, even

though he invite those whom the robber invites, invites them to a very

different vocation, viz. to bind up these wounds by His word, and to

apply to the soul, festering amid evils, the drugs obtained from the

word, and which are analogous to the wine and oil, and plasters, and

other healing appliances which belong to the art of medicine.

Footnote 418:

Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 7.

Footnote 419:

Matt. ix. 12.

Footnote 420:

Rom. xvi. 25, 26.

Footnote 421:

Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 10.

Footnote 422:

τὸ ἡγεμονικόν.

Footnote 423:

ἀψευδῆ.

Chapter LXII.

In the next place, throwing a slur[424] upon the exhortations spoken and

written to those who have led wicked lives, and which invite them to

repentance and reformation of heart, he asserts that we say “that it was

to sinners that God has been sent.” Now this statement of his is much

the same as if he were to find fault with certain persons for saying

that on account of the sick who were living in a city, a physician had

been sent them by a very benevolent monarch. God the Word was sent,

indeed, as a physician to sinners, but as a teacher of divine mysteries

to those who are already pure and who sin no more. But Celsus, unable to

see this distinction,—for he had no desire to be animated with a love of

truth,—remarks, “Why was he not sent to those who were without sin? What

evil is it not to have committed sin?” To which we reply, that if by

those “who were without sin” he means those who sin no more, then our

Saviour Jesus was sent even to such, but not as a physician. While if by

those “who were without sin” he means such as have never at any time

sinned,—for he made no distinction in his statement,—we reply that it is

impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting,

of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus,[425] who “did no

sin.” It is with a malicious intent, indeed, that Celsus says of us that

we assert that “God will receive the unrighteous man if he humble

himself on account of his wickedness, but that He will not receive the

righteous man, although he look up to Him, [adorned] with virtue from

the beginning.” Now we assert that it is impossible for a man to look up

to God [adorned] with virtue from the beginning. For wickedness must

necessarily first exist in men. As Paul also says, “When the commandment

came, sin revived, and I died.”[426] Moreover, we do not teach regarding

the unrighteous man, that it is sufficient for him to humble himself on

account of his wickedness in order to his being accepted by God, but

that God will accept him if, after passing condemnation upon himself for

his past conduct, he walk humbly on account of it, and in a becoming

manner for the time to come.

Footnote 424:

συκοφαντῶν.

Footnote 425:

ὑπεξαιρομένου τοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ζησοῦν νοουμένου ἀνθρώπου.

Footnote 426:

Rom. vii. 9.

Chapter LXIII.

After this, not understanding how it has been said that “every one who

exalteth himself shall be abased;”[427] nor (although taught even by

Plato) that “the good and virtuous man walketh humbly and orderly;” and

ignorant, moreover, that we give the injunction, “Humble yourselves,

therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due

time;”[428] he says that “those persons who preside properly over a

trial make those individuals who bewail before them their evil deeds to

cease from their piteous wailings, lest their decisions should be

determined rather by compassion than by a regard to truth; whereas God

does not decide in accordance with truth, but in accordance with

flattery.”[429] Now, what words of flattery and piteous wailing are

contained in the Holy Scriptures when the sinner says in his prayers to

God, “I have acknowledged my sin, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I

said, I will confess my transgression to the Lord,” etc. etc.? For is he

able to show that a procedure of this kind is not adapted to the

conversion of sinners, who humble themselves in their prayers under the

hand of God? And, becoming confused by his effort to accuse us, he

contradicts himself; appearing at one time to know a man “without sin,”

and “a righteous man, who can look up to God [adorned] with virtue from

the beginning;” and at another time accepting our statement that there

is no man altogether righteous, or without sin;[430] for, as if he

admitted its truth, he remarks, “This is indeed apparently true, that

somehow the human race is naturally inclined to sin.” In the next place,

as if all men were not invited by the word, he says, “All men, then,

without distinction, ought to be invited, since all indeed are sinners.”

And yet, in the preceding pages, we have pointed out the words of Jesus:

“Come unto me, _all_ ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give

you rest.”[431] _All_ men, therefore, labouring and being heavy laden on

account of the nature of sin, are invited to the rest spoken of in the

word of God, “for God sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them

from their destructions.”[432]

Footnote 427:

Cf. Matt. xxiii. 12.

Footnote 428:

1 Pet. v. 6.

Footnote 429:

πρὸς κολακείαν.

Footnote 430:

In the text it is put interrogatively: τίς ἄνθρωπος τελέως δίκαιος; ἢ

τίς ἀναμάρτητος; The allusion seems to be to Job xv. 14: τίς γὰρ ὤν

βροτὸς, ὅτι ἔσται ἄμεμπτος; ἢ ὡς ἐσόμενος δίκαιος γεννητὸς γυναικός.

Footnote 431:

Matt. xi. 28.

Footnote 432:

Ps. cvii. 20.

Chapter LXIV.

But since he says, in addition to this, “What is this preference of

sinners over others?” and makes other remarks of a similar nature, we

have to reply that absolutely a sinner is not preferred before one who

is not a sinner; but that sometimes a sinner, who has become conscious

of his own sin, and for that reason comes to repentance, being humbled

on account of his sins, is preferred before one who is accounted a

lesser sinner, but who does not consider himself one, but exalts himself

on the ground of certain good qualities which he thinks he possesses,

and is greatly elated on their account. And this is manifest to those

who are willing to peruse the Gospels in a spirit of fairness, by the

parable of the publican, who said, “Be merciful to me a sinner,”[433]

and of the Pharisee who boasted with a certain wicked self-conceit in

the words, “I thank Thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners,

unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”[434] For Jesus subjoins

to His narrative of them both the words: “This man went down to his

house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth

himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be

exalted.”[435] We utter no blasphemy, then, against God, neither are we

guilty of falsehood, when we teach that every man, whoever he may be, is

conscious of human infirmity in comparison with the greatness of God,

and that we must ever ask from Him, who alone is able to supply our

deficiencies, what is wanting to our [mortal] nature.

Footnote 433:

Luke xviii. 13.

Footnote 434:

Luke xviii. 11.

Footnote 435:

Luke xviii. 14.

Chapter LXV.

He imagines, however, that we utter these exhortations for the

conversion of sinners, because we are able to gain over no one who is

really good and righteous, and therefore open our gates to the most

unholy and abandoned of men. But if any one will fairly observe our

assemblies, we can present a greater number of those who have been

converted from not a very wicked life, than of those who have committed

the most abominable sins. For naturally those who are conscious to

themselves of better things, desire that those promises may be true

which are declared by God regarding the reward of the righteous, and

thus assent more readily to the statements [of Scripture] than those do

who have led very wicked lives, and who are prevented by their very

consciousness [of evil] from admitting that they will be punished by the

Judge of all with such punishment as befits those who have sinned so

greatly, and as would not be inflicted by the Judge of all contrary to

right reason.[436] Sometimes, also, when very abandoned men are willing

to accept the doctrine of [future] punishment, on account of the hope

which is based upon repentance, they are prevented from so doing by

their habit of sinning, being constantly dipped, and, as it were, dyed

in wickedness, and possessing no longer the power to turn from it easily

to a proper life, and one regulated according to right reason. And

although Celsus observes this, he nevertheless, I know not why,

expresses himself in the following terms: “And yet, indeed, it is

manifest to every one that no one by chastisement, much less by merciful

treatment, could effect a complete change in those who are sinners both

by nature and custom, for to change nature is an exceedingly difficult

thing. But they who are without sin are partakers of a better life.”

Footnote 436:

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

Chapter LXVI.

Now here Celsus appears to me to have committed a great error, in

refusing to those who are sinners by nature, and also by habit, the

possibility of a complete transformation, alleging that they cannot be

cured even by punishment. For it clearly appears that all men are

inclined to sin by nature, and some not only by nature but by practice,

while not all men are incapable of an entire transformation. For there

are found in every philosophical sect, and in the word of God, persons

who are related to have undergone so great a change that they may be

proposed as a model of excellence of life. Among the names of the heroic

age some mention Hercules and Ulysses, among those of later times,

Socrates, and of those who have lived very recently, Musonius.[437] Not

only against us, then, did Celsus utter the calumny, when he said that

“it was manifest to every one that those who were given to sin by nature

and habit could not by any means—even by punishments—be completely

changed for the better,” but also against the noblest names in

philosophy, who have not denied that the recovery of virtue was a

possible thing for men. But although he did not express his meaning with

exactness, we shall nevertheless, though giving his words a more

favourable construction, convict him of unsound reasoning. For his words

were: “Those who are inclined to sin by nature and habit, no one could

completely reform even by chastisement;” and his words, as we understood

them, we refuted to the best of our ability.[438]

Footnote 437:

He is said to have been either a Babylonian or Tyrrhenian, and to have

lived in the reign of Nero. Cf. Philostratus, iv. 12.—RUÆUS.

Footnote 438:

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

Chapter LXVII.

It is probable, however, that he meant to convey some such meaning as

this, that those who were both by nature and habit given to the

commission of those sins which are committed by the most abandoned of

men, could not be completely transformed even by punishment. And yet

this is shown to be false from the history of certain philosophers. For

who is there that would not rank among the most abandoned of men the

individual who somehow submitted to yield himself to his master, when he

placed him in a brothel,[439] that he might allow himself to be polluted

by any one who liked? And yet such a circumstance is related of Phædo!

And who will not agree that he who burst, accompanied with a

flute-player and a party of revellers, his profligate associates, into

the school of the venerable Xenocrates, to insult a man who was the

admiration of his friends, was not one of the greatest miscreants[440]

among mankind? Yet, notwithstanding this, reason was powerful enough to

effect their conversion, and to enable them to make such progress in

philosophy, that the one was deemed worthy by Plato to recount the

discourse of Socrates on immortality, and to record his firmness in

prison, when he evinced his contempt of the hemlock, and with all

fearlessness and tranquillity of mind treated of subjects so numerous

and important, that it is difficult even for those to follow them who

are giving their utmost attention, and who are disturbed by no

distraction; while Polemon, on the other hand, who from a profligate

became a man of most temperate life, was successor in the school of

Xenocrates, so celebrated for his venerable character. Celsus then does

not speak the truth when he says “that sinners by nature and habit

cannot be completely reformed even by chastisement.”

Footnote 439:

ἐπὶ τέγους.

Footnote 440:

μιαρώτατον ἀνθρώπων.

Chapter LXVIII.

That philosophical discourses, however, distinguished by orderly

arrangement and elegant expression,[441] should produce such results in

the case of those individuals just enumerated, and upon others[442] who

have led wicked lives, is not at all to be wondered at. But when we

consider that those discourses, which Celsus terms “vulgar,”[443] are

filled with power, as if they were spells, and see that they at once

convert multitudes from a life of licentiousness to one of extreme

regularity,[444] and from a life of wickedness to a better, and from a

state of cowardice or unmanliness to one of such high-toned courage as

to lead men to despise even death through the piety which shows itself

within them, why should we not justly admire the power which they

contain? For the words of those who at the first assumed the office of

[Christian] ambassadors, and who gave their labours to rear up the

churches of God,—nay, their preaching also,—were accompanied with a

persuasive power, though not like that found among those who profess the

philosophy of Plato, or of any other merely human philosopher, which

possesses no other qualities than those of human nature. But the

demonstration which followed the words of the apostles of Jesus was

given from God, and was accredited[445] by the Spirit and by power. And

therefore _their_ word ran swiftly and speedily, or rather the word of

_God_ through their instrumentality, transformed numbers of persons who

had been sinners both by nature and habit, whom no one could have

reformed by punishment, but who were changed by the word, which moulded

and transformed them according to its pleasure.

Footnote 441:

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

Footnote 442:

The reading in the text is ἄλλως, for which ἄλλους has been

conjectured by Ruæus and Boherellus, and which has been adopted in the

translation.

Footnote 443:

ἰδιωτικοὺς.

Footnote 444:

εὐσταθέστατον.

Footnote 445:

πιστικὴ ἀπὸ πνεύματος.

Chapter LXIX.

Celsus continues in his usual manner, asserting that “to change a nature

entirely is exceedingly difficult.” We, however, who know of only one

nature in every rational soul, and who maintain that none has been

created evil by the Author of all things, but that many have _become_

wicked through education, and perverse example, and surrounding

influences,[446] so that wickedness has been naturalized[447] in some

individuals, are persuaded that for the word of God to change a nature

in which evil has been naturalized is not only not impossible, but is

even a work of no very great difficulty, if a man only believe that he

must entrust himself to the God of all things, and do everything with a

view to please Him with whom

“Both good and bad are not in the same honour,

Nor do the idle man and he who has laboured much

Perish alike.”[448]

But even if it be exceedingly difficult to effect a change in some

persons, the cause must be held to lie in their own will, which is

reluctant to accept the belief that the God over all things is a just

Judge of all the deeds done during life. For deliberate choice and

practice[449] avail much towards the accomplishment of things which

appear to be very difficult, and, to speak hyperbolically, almost

impossible. Has the nature of man, when desiring to walk along a rope

extended in the air through the middle of the theatre, and to carry at

the same time numerous and heavy weights, been able by practice and

attention to accomplish such a feat; but when desiring to live in

conformity with the practice of virtue, does it find it impossible to do

so, although formerly it may have been exceedingly wicked? See whether

he who holds such views does not bring a charge against the nature of

the Creator of the rational animal[450] rather than against the

creature, if He has formed the nature of man with powers for the

attainment of things of such difficulty, and of no utility whatever, but

has rendered it incapable of securing its own blessedness. But these

remarks may suffice as an answer to the assertion that “entirely to

change a nature is exceedingly difficult.” He alleges, in the next

place, that “they who are without sin are partakers of a better life;”

not making it clear what he means by “those who are without sin,”

whether those who are so from the beginning [of their lives], or those

who become so by a transformation. Of those who were so from the

beginning of their lives, there cannot possibly be any; while those who

are so after a transformation [of heart] are found to be few in number,

being those who have become so after giving in their allegiance to the

saving word. And they were not such when they gave in their allegiance.

For, apart from the aid of the word, and that too the word of

perfection, it is impossible for a man to become free from sin.

Footnote 446:

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

Footnote 447:

φυσιωθῆναι.

Footnote 448:

Cf. _Iliad_, ix. 319, 320.

Footnote 449:

προαίρεσις καὶ ἄσκησις.

Footnote 450:

τοῦ λογικοῦ ζώου.

Chapter LXX.

In the next place, he objects to the statement, as if it were maintained

by us, that “God will be able to do all things,” not seeing even here

how these words are meant, and what the “_all things_” are which are

included in it, and how it is said that God “will be able.” But on these

matters it is not necessary now to speak; for although he might with a

show of reason have opposed this proposition, he has not done so.

Perhaps he did not understand the arguments which might be plausibly

used against it, or if he did, he saw the answers that might be

returned. Now in our judgment God can do everything which it is possible

for Him to do without ceasing to be God, and good, and wise. But Celsus

asserts—not comprehending the meaning of the expression “God can do all

things”—“that He will not desire to do anything wicked,” admitting that

He has the _power_, but not the _will_, to commit evil. We, on the

contrary, maintain that as that which by nature possesses the property

of sweetening other things through its own inherent sweetness cannot

produce bitterness contrary to its own peculiar nature,[451] nor that

whose nature it is to produce light through its being light can cause

darkness; so neither is God able to commit wickedness, for the power of

doing evil is contrary to His deity and its omnipotence. Whereas if any

one among existing things is able to commit wickedness from being

inclined to wickedness by nature, it does so from not having in its

nature the ability not to do evil.

Footnote 451:

ὥσπερ οὐ δύναται τὸ πεφυκὸς γλυκαίνειν τῷ γλυκὺ τυγχάνειν πικράζειν,

παρὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ μόνην αἰτίαν.

Chapter LXXI.

He next assumes what is not granted by the more rational class of

believers, but what perhaps is considered to be true by some who are

devoid of intelligence,—viz. that “God, like those who are overcome with

pity, being Himself overcome, alleviates the sufferings of the wicked

through pity for their wailings, and casts off the good, who do nothing

of that kind, which is the height of injustice.” Now, in our judgment,

God lightens the suffering of no wicked man who has not betaken himself

to a virtuous life, and casts off no one who is already good, nor yet

alleviates the suffering of any one who mourns, simply because he utters

lamentation, or takes pity upon him, to use the word pity in its more

common acceptation.[452] But those who have passed severe condemnation

upon themselves because of their sins, and who, as on that account,

lament and bewail themselves as lost, so far as their previous conduct

is concerned, and who have manifested a satisfactory change, are

received by God on account of their repentance, as those who have

undergone a transformation from a life of great wickedness. For virtue,

taking up her abode in the souls of these persons, and expelling the

wickedness which had previous possession of them, produces an oblivion

of the past. And even although virtue do not effect an entrance, yet if

a considerable progress take place in the soul, even that is sufficient,

in the proportion that it is progressive, to drive out and destroy the

flood of wickedness, so that it almost ceases to remain in the soul.

Footnote 452:

ἵνα κοινότερον τῷ ἐλέει χρήσωμαι.

Chapter LXXII.

In the next place, speaking as in the person of a teacher of our

doctrine, he expresses himself as follows: “Wise men reject what we say,

being led into error, and ensnared by their wisdom.” In reply to which

we say that, since wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human things

and of their causes, or, as it is defined by the word of God, “the

breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory

of the Almighty, and the brightness of the everlasting light, and the

unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His

goodness,”[453] no one who was really wise would reject what is said by

a Christian acquainted with the principles of Christianity, or would be

led into error, or ensnared by it. For true wisdom does not mislead, but

ignorance does, while of existing things knowledge alone is permanent,

and the truth which is derived from wisdom. But if, contrary to the

definition of wisdom, you call any one whatever who dogmatizes with

sophistical opinions wise, we answer that in conformity with what _you_

call wisdom, such an one rejects the words of God, being misled and

ensnared by plausible sophisms. And since, according to our doctrine,

wisdom is not the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of evil, so to

speak, is in those who hold false opinions and who are deceived by them,

I would therefore in such persons term it ignorance rather than wisdom.

Footnote 453:

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

Chapter LXXIII.

After this he again slanders the ambassador of Christianity, and gives

out regarding him that he relates “ridiculous things,” although he does

not show or clearly point out what are the things which he calls

“ridiculous.” And in his slanders he says that “no wise man believes the

gospel, being driven away by the multitudes who adhere to it.” And in

this he acts like one who should say that owing to the multitude of

those ignorant persons who are brought into subjection to the laws, no

wise man would yield obedience to Solon, for example, or to Lycurgus, or

Zaleucus, or any other legislator, and especially if by wise man he

means one who is wise [by living] in conformity with virtue. For, as

with regard to these ignorant persons, the legislators, according to

their ideas of utility, caused them to be surrounded with appropriate

guidance and laws, so God, legislating through Jesus Christ for men in

all parts of the world, brings to Himself even those who are not wise in

the way in which it is possible for such persons to be brought to a

better life. And God, well knowing this, as we have already shown in the

preceding pages, says in the books of Moses: “They have moved me to

jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with

their idols: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a

people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.”[454] And

Paul also, knowing this, said, “But God hath chosen the foolish things

of the world to confound the wise,”[455] calling, in a general way, wise

all who appear to have made advances in knowledge, but have fallen into

an atheistic polytheism, since “professing themselves to be wise they

became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an

image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed

beasts, and creeping things.”[456]

Footnote 454:

Cf. Deut. xxxii. 21.

Footnote 455:

Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27.

Footnote 456:

Rom. i. 22, 23.

Chapter LXXIV.

He accuses the Christian teacher, moreover, of “seeking after the

unintelligent.” In answer, we ask, Whom do you mean by the

“unintelligent?” For, to speak accurately, every wicked man is

“unintelligent.” If then by “unintelligent” you mean the wicked, do you,

in drawing men to philosophy, seek to gain the wicked or the

virtuous?[457] But it is impossible to gain the virtuous, because they

have already given themselves to philosophy. The wicked, then, [you try

to gain;] but if they are wicked, are they “unintelligent?” And many

such you seek to win over to philosophy, and you therefore seek the

“unintelligent.” But if I seek after those who are thus termed

“unintelligent,” I act like a benevolent physician, who should seek

after the sick in order to help and cure them. If, however, by

“unintelligent” you mean persons who are not clever,[458] but the

inferior class of men intellectually,[459] I shall answer that I

endeavour to improve such also to the best of my ability, although I

would not desire to build up the Christian community out of such

materials. For I seek in preference those who are more clever and acute,

because they are able to comprehend the meaning of the hard sayings, and

of those passages in the law, and prophecies, and Gospels, which are

expressed with obscurity, and which you have despised as not containing

anything worthy of notice, because you have not ascertained the meaning

which they contain, nor tried to enter into the aim of the writers.

Footnote 457:

ἀστείους.

Footnote 458:

τοὺς μὴ ἐντρεχεῖς.

Footnote 459:

The reading in the text is τερατωδεστέρους, of which Ruæus remarks,

“Hic nullum habet locum.” Καταδεεστέρους has been conjectured instead,

and has been adopted in the translation.

Chapter LXXV.

But as he afterwards says that “the teacher of Christianity acts

like a person who promises to restore patients to bodily health, but

who prevents them from consulting skilled physicians, by whom his

ignorance would be exposed,” we shall inquire in reply, “What are

the physicians to whom you refer, from whom we turn away ignorant

individuals? For you do not suppose that we exhort those to embrace

the gospel who are devoted to philosophy, so that you would regard

the latter as the physicians from whom we keep away such as we

invite to come to the word of God.” He indeed will make no answer,

because he cannot name the physicians; or else he will be obliged to

betake himself to those of them who are ignorant, and who of their

own accord servilely yield themselves to the worship of many gods,

and to whatever other opinions are entertained by ignorant

individuals. In either case, then, he will be shown to have employed

to no purpose in his argument the illustration of “one who keeps

others away from skilled physicians.” But if, in order to preserve

from the philosophy of Epicurus, and from such as are considered

physicians after his system, those who are deceived by them, why

should we not be acting most reasonably in keeping such away from a

dangerous disease caused by the physicians of Celsus,—that, viz.,

which leads to the annihilation of providence, and the introduction

of pleasure as a good? But let it be conceded that we do keep away

those whom we encourage to become our disciples from other

philosopher-physicians,—from the Peripatetics, for example, who deny

the existence of providence and the relation of Deity to man,—why

shall we not piously[460] train and heal those who have been thus

encouraged, persuading them to devote themselves to the God of all

things, and free those who yield obedience to us from the great

wounds inflicted by the words of such as are deemed to be

philosophers? Nay, let it also be admitted that we turn away from

physicians of the sect of the Stoics, who introduce a corruptible

god, and assert that his essence consists of a body, which is

capable of being changed and altered in all its parts,[461] and who

also maintain that all things will one day perish, and that God

alone will be left; why shall we not even thus emancipate our

subjects from evils, and bring them by pious arguments to devote

themselves to the Creator, and to admire the Father of the Christian

system, who has so arranged that instruction of the most benevolent

kind, and fitted for the conversion of souls,[462] should be

distributed throughout the whole human race? Nay, if we should cure

those who have fallen into the folly of believing in the

transmigration of souls through the teaching of physicians, who will

have it that the rational nature descends sometimes into all kinds

of irrational animals, and sometimes into that state of being which

is incapable of using the imagination,[463] why should we not

improve the souls of our subjects by means of a doctrine which does

not teach that a state of insensibility or irrationalism is produced

in the wicked instead of punishment, but which shows that the

labours and chastisements inflicted upon the wicked by God are a

kind of medicines leading to conversion? For those who are

intelligent Christians,[464] keeping this in view, deal with the

simple-minded, as parents do with very young[465] children. We do

not betake ourselves then to young persons and silly rustics, saying

to them, “Flee from physicians.” Nor do we say, “See that none of

you lay hold of knowledge;” nor do we assert that “knowledge is an

evil;” nor are we mad enough to say that “knowledge causes men to

lose their soundness of mind.” We would not even say that any one

ever perished through wisdom; and although we give instruction, we

never say, “Give heed to me,” but “Give heed to the God of all

things, and to Jesus, the giver of instruction concerning Him.” And

none of us is so great a braggart[466] as to say what Celsus put in

the mouth of one of our teachers to his acquaintances, “I alone will

save you.” Observe here the lies which he utters against us!

Moreover, we do _not_ assert that “true physicians destroy those

whom they promise to cure.”

Footnote 460:

For εὐσεβεῖς in the text, Boherellus conjectures εὐσεβῶς.

Footnote 461:

θεὸν φθαρτὸν εἰσαγόντων, καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ λεγόντων σῶμα τρεπτὸν

διόλου καὶ ἀλλοιωτὸν, καὶ μεταβλητὸν.

Footnote 462:

The words in the text are, φιλανθρωπότατα ἐπιστρεπτικὸν, καὶ ψυχῶν

μαθήματα οἰκονομήσαντα, for which we have adopted in the translation

the emendation of Boherellus, φιλανθρωπότατα καὶ ψυχῶν ἐπιστρεπτικὰ

μαθήματα.

Footnote 463:

ἀλλὰ κἂν τοὺς πεπονθότας τὴν περὶ τῆς μετενσωματώσεως ἄνοιαν ἀπὸ

ἰατρῶν, τῶν καταβιβαζόντων τὴν λογικὴν φύσιν ὁτὲ μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄλογον

πᾶσαν, ὁτὲ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀφάνταστον.

Footnote 464:

Instead of οἱ φρονίμως Χριστιανοὶ ζῶντες, as in the text, Ruæus and

Boherellus conjecture οἱ φρονίμως Χριστιανίζοντες, etc.

Footnote 465:

τοὺς κομιδῇ νηπίους.

Footnote 466:

ἀλαζὼν.

Chapter LXXVI.

And he produces a second illustration to our disadvantage, saying that

“our teacher acts like a drunken man, who, entering a company of

drunkards, should accuse those who are sober of being drunk.” But let

him show, say from the writings of Paul, that the apostle of Jesus gave

way to drunkenness, and that his words were not those of soberness; or

from the writings of John, that his thoughts do not breathe a spirit of

temperance and of freedom from the intoxication of evil. No one, then,

who is of sound mind, and teaches the doctrines of Christianity, gets

drunk with wine; but Celsus utters these calumnies against us in a

spirit very unlike that of a philosopher. Moreover, let Celsus say who

those “sober” persons are whom the ambassadors of Christianity accuse.

For in our judgment all are intoxicated who address themselves to

inanimate objects as to God. And why do I say “intoxicated?” “Insane”

would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and

worship images or animals as divinities. And they too are not less

insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and

sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine

divinities.

Chapter LXXVII.

He next likens our teacher to one suffering from ophthalmia, and his

disciples to those suffering from the same disease, and says that “such

an one amongst a company of those who are afflicted with ophthalmia,

accuses those who are sharp-sighted of being blind.” Who, then, would we

ask, O Greeks, are they who in our judgment do not see, save those who

are unable to look up from the exceeding greatness of the world and its

contents, and from the beauty of created things, and to see that they

ought to worship, and admire, and reverence Him alone who made these

things, and that it is not befitting to treat with reverence anything

contrived by man, and applied to the honour of God, whether it be

without a reference to the Creator, or with one?[467] For, to compare

with that illimitable excellence, which surpasses all created being,

things which ought not to be brought into comparison with it, is the act

of those whose understanding is darkened. We do not then say that those

who are sharp-sighted are suffering from ophthalmia or blindness; but we

assert that those who, in ignorance of God, give themselves to temples

and images, and so-called sacred seasons,[468] are blinded in their

minds, and especially when, in addition to their impiety, they live also

in licentiousness, not even inquiring after any honourable work

whatever, but doing everything that is of a disgraceful character.

Footnote 467:

εἴτε χωρὶς τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεοῦ εἴτε καὶ μετ’ ἐκείνου.

Footnote 468:

ἱερομηνίας.

Chapter LXXVIII.

After having brought against us charges of so serious a kind, he wishes

to make it appear that, although he has others to adduce, he passes them

by in silence. His words are as follow: “These charges I have to bring

against them, and others of a similar nature, not to enumerate them one

by one, and I affirm that they are in error, and that they act

insolently towards God, in order to lead on wicked men by empty hopes,

and to persuade them to despise better things, saying that if they

refrain from them it will be better for them.” In answer to which, it

might be said that from the power which shows itself in those who are

converted to Christianity, it is not at all the “wicked” who are won

over to the gospel, as the more simple class of persons, and, as many

would term them, the “unpolished.”[469] For such individuals, through

fear of the punishments that are threatened, which arouses and exhorts

them to refrain from those actions which are followed by punishments,

strive to yield themselves up to the Christian religion, being

influenced by the power of the word to such a degree, that through fear

of what are called in the word “everlasting punishments,” they despise

all the tortures which are devised against them among men,—even death

itself, with countless other evils,—which no wise man would say is the

act of persons of wicked mind. How can temperance and sober-mindedness,

or benevolence and liberality, be practised by a man of wicked mind?

Nay, even the fear of God cannot be felt by such an one, with respect to

which, because it is useful to the many, the gospel encourages those who

are not yet able to choose that which ought to be chosen for its own

sake, to select it as the greatest blessing, and one above all promise;

for this principle cannot be implanted in him who prefers to live in

wickedness.

Footnote 469:

The reading in the text is κομψοί, which is so opposed to the sense of

the passage, that the conjecture of Guietus, ἄκομψοι, has been adopted

in the translation.

Chapter LXXIX.

But if in these matters any one were to imagine that it is superstition

rather than wickedness which appears in the multitude of those who

believe the word, and should charge our doctrine with making men

superstitious, we shall answer him by saying that, as a certain

legislator replied to the question of one who asked him whether he had

enacted for his citizens the best laws, that he had not given them

absolutely the best, but the best which they were capable of receiving;

so it might be said by the Father of the Christian doctrine, I have

given the best laws and instruction for the improvement of morals of

which the many were capable, not threatening sinners with imaginary

labours and chastisements, but with such as are real, and necessary to

be applied for the correction of those who offer resistance, although

they do not at all understand the object of him who inflicts the

punishment, nor the effect of the labours. For the doctrine of

punishment is both attended with utility, and is agreeable to truth, and

is stated in obscure terms with advantage. Moreover, as for the most

part it is not the wicked whom the ambassadors of Christianity gain

over, neither do we insult God. For we speak regarding Him both what is

true, and what appears to be clear to the multitude, but not so clear to

them as it is to those few who investigate the truths of the gospel in a

philosophical manner.

Chapter LXXX.

Seeing, however, that Celsus alleges that “Christians are won over by us

through vain hopes,” we thus reply to him when he finds fault with our

doctrine of the blessed life, and of communion with God: “As for you,

good sir, they also are won over by vain hopes who have accepted the

doctrine of Pythagoras and Plato regarding the soul, that it is its

nature to ascend to the vault[470] of heaven, and in the super-celestial

space to behold the sights which are seen by the blessed spectators

above.” According to you, O Celsus, they also who have accepted the

doctrine of the duration of the soul [after death], and who lead a life

through which they become heroes, and make their abodes with the gods,

are won over by vain hopes. Probably also they who are persuaded that

the soul comes [into the body] from without, and that it will be

withdrawn from the power of death,[471] would be said by Celsus to be

won over by empty hopes. Let him then come forth to the contest, no

longer concealing the sect to which he belongs, but confessing himself

to be an Epicurean, and let him meet the arguments, which are not

lightly advanced among Greeks and barbarians, regarding the immortality

of the soul, or its duration [after death], or the immortality of the

thinking principle;[472] and let him prove that these are words which

deceive with empty hopes those who give their assent to them; but that

the adherents of his philosophical system are pure from empty hopes, and

that they indeed lead to hopes of good, or—what is more in keeping with

his opinions—give birth to no hope at all, on account of the immediate

and complete destruction of the soul [after death]. Unless, perhaps,

Celsus and the Epicureans will deny that it is a vain hope which they

entertain regarding _their_ end,—pleasure,—which, according to them, is

the supreme good, and which consists in the permanent health of the

body, and the hope regarding it which is entertained by Epicurus.[473]

Footnote 470:

ἁψῖδα.

Footnote 471:

Τάχα δὲ καὶ οἱ πεισθέντες περὶ τοῦ θύραθεν νοῦ, ὡς θανάτου καινοῦ

διεξαγωγὴν ἕξοντος, etc. Locus certe obscurus, cui lucem afferre

conatur Boherellus, legendo divisim ὡς θανάτου καὶ νοῦ διεξαγωγὴν

ἕξοντος, ut sensus sit “morti etiam mentem subductum iri.” Nam si

θύραθεν ἥκει νοῦς, consequens est ut θανάτου καὶ νοῦς διεξαγωγὴν ἔχη.

Cf. Aristot. lib. ii. c. 3, _de generatione animalium_.—SPENCER.

Footnote 472:

ἢ τῆς τοῦ νοῦ ἀθανασίας.

Footnote 473:

Εἰ μὴ ἄρα Κέλσος καὶ οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι οὐ φήσουσι κούφην εἶναι ἐλπίδα τὴν

περὶ τοῦ τέλους αὐτῶν τῆς ἡδονῆς, ἥτις κατ’ αὐτούς ἐστι τὸ ἀγαθὸν, τὸ

τῆς σαρκὸς εὐσταθὲς κατάστημα, καὶ τὸ περὶ ταύτης πιστὸν Ἐπικούρῳ

ἔλπισμα.

Chapter LXXXI.

And do not suppose that it is not in keeping with the Christian religion

for me to have accepted, against Celsus, the opinions of those

philosophers who have treated of the immortality or after-duration of

the soul; for, holding certain views in common with them, we shall more

conveniently establish our position, that the future life of blessedness

shall be for those only who have accepted the religion which is

according to Jesus, and that devotion towards the Creator of all things

which is pure and sincere, and unmingled with any created thing

whatever. And let him who likes show what “better things” we persuade

men to despise, and let him compare the blessed end with God in

Christ,—that is, the word, and the wisdom, and all virtue,—which,

according to our view, shall be bestowed, by the gift of God, on those

who have lived a pure and blameless life, and who have felt a single and

undivided love for the God of all things, with that end which is to

follow according to the teaching of each philosophic sect, whether it be

Greek or barbarian, or according to the professions of religious

mysteries;[474] and let him prove that the end which is predicted by any

of the others is superior to that which we promise, and consequently

that that is true, and ours not befitting the gift of God, nor those who

have lived a good life; or let him prove that these words were not

spoken by the divine Spirit, who filled the souls of the holy prophets.

And let him who likes show that those words which are acknowledged among

all men to be human, are superior to those which are proved to be

divine, and uttered by inspiration. And what are the “better” things

from which we teach those who receive them that it would be better to

abstain? For if it be not arrogant so to speak, it is self-evident that

nothing can be denied which is better than to entrust oneself to the God

of all, and yield oneself up to the doctrine which raises us above all

created things, and brings us, through the animate and living word—which

is also living wisdom and the Son of God—to God who is over all.

However, as the third book of our answers to the treatise of Celsus has

extended to a sufficient length, we shall here bring our present remarks

to a close, and in what is to follow shall meet what Celsus has

subsequently written.

Footnote 474:

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

ἐπαγγελίαν, τέλει.

BOOK IV.

Chapter I.

Having, in the three preceding books, fully stated what occurred to us

by way of answer to the treatise of Celsus, we now, reverend Ambrosius,

with prayer to God through Christ, offer this fourth book as a reply to

what follows. And we pray that words may be given us, as it is written

in the book of Jeremiah that the Lord said to the prophet: “Behold, I

have put my words in thy mouth as fire. See, I have set thee this day

over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down,

and to destroy, and to throw down, and to build and to plant.”[475] For

we need words now which will root out of every wounded soul the

reproaches uttered against the truth by this treatise of Celsus, or

which proceed from opinions like his. And we need also thoughts which

will pull down all edifices based on false opinions, and especially the

edifice raised by Celsus in his work, which resembles the building of

those who said, “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower whose top

shall reach to heaven.”[476] Yea, we even require a wisdom which will

throw down all high things that rise against the knowledge of God,[477]

and especially that height of arrogance which Celsus displays against

us. And in the next place, as we must not stop with rooting out and

pulling down the hindrances which have just been mentioned, but must, in

room of what has been rooted out, plant the plants of “God’s

husbandry;”[478] and in place of what has been pulled down, rear up the

building of God, and the temple of His glory,—we must for that reason

pray also to the Lord, who bestowed the gifts named in the book of

Jeremiah, that He may grant even to us words adapted both for building

up the [temple] of Christ, and for planting the spiritual law, and the

prophetic words referring to the same.[479] And above all is it

necessary to show, as against the assertions of Celsus which follow

those he has already made, that the prophecies regarding Christ are true

predictions. For, arraying himself at the same time against both

parties—against the Jews on the one hand, who deny that the advent of

Christ has taken place, but who expect it as future, and against

Christians on the other, who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ spoken

of in prophecy—he makes the following statement:—

Footnote 475:

Cf. Jer. i. 9, 10.

Footnote 476:

Cf. Gen. xi. 4.

Footnote 477:

Cf. 2 Cor. x. 5.

Footnote 478:

Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 9.

Footnote 479:

τοὺς ἀνάλογον αὐτῷ προφητικοὺς λόγους.