Chapter III.

And he continues: “What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part

of God?” not observing that, according to our teaching, the meaning of

the descent is pre-eminently to convert what are called in the Gospel

the lost “sheep of the house of Israel;” and secondly, to take away from

them, on account of their disobedience, what is called the “kingdom of

God,” and to give to other husbandmen than the ancient Jews, viz. to the

Christians, who will render to God the fruits of His kingdom in due

season (each action being a “fruit of the kingdom”).[484] We shall

therefore, out of a greater number, select a few remarks by way of

answer to the question of Celsus, when he says, “What is the meaning of

such a descent upon the part of God?” And Celsus here returns to himself

an answer which would have been given neither by Jews nor by us, when he

asks, “Was it in order to learn what goes on amongst men?” For not one

of us asserts that it was in order to learn what goes on amongst men

that Christ entered into this life. Immediately after, however, as if

some would reply that it _was_ “in order to learn what goes on among

men,” he makes this objection to his own statement: “Does he not know

all things?” Then, as if we were to answer that He _does_ know all

things, he raises a new question, saying, “Then he does know, but does

not make [men] better, nor is it possible for him by means of his divine

power to make [men] better.” Now all this on his part is silly

talk;[485] for God, by means of His word, which is continually passing

from generation to generation into holy souls, and constituting them

friends of God and prophets, _does_ improve those who listen to His

words; and by the coming of Christ He improves, through the doctrine of

Christianity, not those who are unwilling, but those who have chosen the

better life, and that which is pleasing to God. I do not know, moreover,

what kind of improvement Celsus wished to take place when he raised the

objection, asking, “Is it then not possible for him, by means of his

divine power, to make [men] better, unless he send some one for that

special purpose?”[486] Would he then have the improvement to take place

by God’s filling the minds of men with new ideas, removing at once the

[inherent] wickedness, and implanting virtue [in its stead]?[487]

Another person now would inquire whether this was not inconsistent or

impossible in the very nature of things; we, however, would say, “Grant

it to be so, and let it be possible.” Where, then, is our free

will?[488] and what credit is there in assenting to the truth? or how is

the rejection of what is false praiseworthy? But even if it were once

granted that such a course was not only possible, but could be

accomplished with propriety [by God], why would not one rather inquire

(asking a question like that of Celsus) why it was not possible for God,

by means of His divine power, to create men who needed no improvement,

but who were of themselves virtuous and perfect, evil being altogether

non-existent? These questions may perplex ignorant and foolish

individuals, but not him who sees into the nature of things; for if you

take away the spontaneity of virtue, you destroy its essence. But it

would need an entire treatise to discuss these matters; and on this

subject the Greeks have expressed themselves at great length in their

works on providence. They truly would not say what Celsus has expressed

in words, that “God knows [all things] indeed, but does not make [men]

better, nor is able to do so by His divine power.” We ourselves have

spoken in many parts of our writings on these points to the best of our

ability, and the Holy Scriptures have established the same to those who

are able to understand them.

Footnote 484:

τοὺς καρποὺς τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ βασιλείας ἀποδώσουσι τῷ Θεῷ, ἐν τοῖς ἑκάστης

πράξεως οὔσης καρποῦ τῆς βασιλείας καιροῖς.

Footnote 485:

εὐήθως.

Footnote 486:

The word φυσει which is found in the text seems out of place, and has

been omitted in the translation, agreeably to the emendation of

Boherellus.

Footnote 487:

Ἆρα γὰρ ἤθελε φαντασιουμένοις τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, ἀπειληφότος μὲν

ἀθρόως τὴν κακίαν, ἐμφύοντος δὲ τὴν ἀρετην, τὴν ἐπανόρθωσιν γενέσθαι;

Footnote 488:

ποῦ οὖν τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν;

The writings of Origen, Vol. 2 (of 2) · 第 3 / 104 章