In addition to all that he has already said, Celsus subjoins the
following: “All things, accordingly, were not made for man, any more
than they were made for lions, or eagles, or dolphins, but that this
world, as being God’s work, might be perfect and entire in all respects.
For this reason all things have been adjusted, not with reference to
each other, but with regard to their bearing upon the whole.[841] And
God takes care of the whole, and [His] providence will never forsake it;
and it does not become worse; nor does God after a time bring it back to
himself; nor is He angry on account of men any more than on account of
apes or flies; nor does He threaten these beings, each one of which has
received its appointed lot in its proper place.” Let us then briefly
reply to these statements. I think, indeed, that I have shown in the
preceding pages that all things were created for man, and every rational
being, and that it was chiefly for the sake of the rational creature
that the creation took place. Celsus, indeed, may say that this was done
not more for man than for lions, or the other creatures which he
mentions; but we maintain that the Creator did not form these things for
lions, or eagles, or dolphins, but all for the sake of the rational
creature, and “in order that this world, as being God’s work, might be
perfect and complete in all things.” For to this sentiment we must yield
our assent as being well said. And God takes care, not, as Celsus
supposes, merely of the _whole_, but beyond the whole, in a special
degree of every rational being. Nor will Providence ever abandon the
whole; for although it should become more wicked, owing to the sin of
the rational being, which is a portion of the whole, He makes
arrangements to purify it, and after a time to bring back the whole to
Himself. Moreover, He is not angry with apes or flies; but on human
beings, as those who have transgressed the laws of nature, He sends
judgments and chastisements, and threatens them by the mouth of the
prophets, and by the Saviour who came to visit the whole human race,
that those who hear the threatenings may be converted by them, while
those who neglect these calls to conversion may deservedly suffer those
punishments which it becomes God, in conformity with that will of His
which acts for the advantage of the whole, to inflict upon those who
need such painful discipline and correction. But as our fourth book has
now attained sufficient dimensions, we shall here terminate our
discourse. And may God grant, through His Son, who is God the Word, and
Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, and everything else which the
sacred Scriptures when speaking of God call Him, that we may make a good
beginning of the fifth book, to the benefit of our readers, and may
bring it to a successful conclusion, with the aid of His word abiding in
our soul.
Footnote 841:
ἀλλ’ εἰ μὴ πᾶν ἔργον. “Gelenius does not recognise these words, and
Guietus regards them as superfluous.” They are omitted in the
translation.
BOOK V.
Chapter I.
It is not, my reverend Ambrosius, because we seek after many words—a
thing which is forbidden, and in the indulgence of which it is
impossible to avoid sin[842]—that we now begin the fifth book of our
reply to the treatise of Celsus, but with the endeavour, so far as may
be within our power, to leave none of his statements without
examination, and especially those in which it might appear to some that
he had skilfully assailed us and the Jews. If it were possible, indeed,
for me to enter along with my words into the conscience of every one
without exception who peruses this work, and to extract each dart which
wounds him who is not completely protected with the “whole armour” of
God, and apply a rational medicine to cure the wound inflicted by
Celsus, which prevents those who listen to his words from remaining
“sound in the faith,” I would do so. But since it is the work of God
alone, in conformity with His own Spirit, and along with that of Christ,
to take up His abode invisibly in those persons whom He judges worthy of
being visited; so, on the other hand, is _our_ object to try, by means
of arguments and treatises, to confirm men in their faith, and to earn
the name of “workmen needing not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the
word of truth.”[843] And there is one thing above all which it appears
to us we ought to do, if we would discharge faithfully the task enjoined
upon us by you, and that is to overturn to the best of our ability the
confident assertions of Celsus. Let us then quote such assertions of his
as follow those which we have already refuted (the reader must decide
whether we have done so successfully or not), and let us reply to them.
And may God grant that we approach not our subject with our
understanding and reason empty and devoid of divine inspiration, that
the faith of those whom we wish to aid may not depend upon human wisdom,
but that, receiving the “mind” of Christ from His Father, who alone can
bestow it, and being strengthened by participating in the word of God,
we may pull down “every high thing that exalteth itself against the
knowledge of God,”[844] and the imagination of Celsus, who exalts
himself against us, and against Jesus, and also against Moses and the
prophets, in order that He who “gave the word to those who published it
with great power”[845] may supply us also, and bestow upon us “great
power,” so that faith in the word and power of God may be implanted in
the minds of all who will peruse our work.
Footnote 842:
Cf. Prov. x. 19.
Footnote 843:
Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 15.
Footnote 844:
Cf. 2 Cor. x. 5.
Footnote 845:
Cf. Ps. lxviii. 11.
Chapter II.
We have now, then, to refute that statement of his which runs as
follows: “O Jews and Christians, no God or son of a God either came or
will come down [to earth]. But if you mean that certain angels did so,
then what do you call them? Are they gods, or some other race of beings?
Some other race of beings [doubtless], and in all probability demons.”
Now as Celsus here is guilty of repeating himself (for in the preceding
pages such assertions have been frequently advanced by him), it is
unnecessary to discuss the matter at greater length, seeing what we have
already said upon this point may suffice. We shall mention, however, a
few considerations out of a greater number, such as we deem in harmony
with our former arguments, but which have not altogether the same
bearing as they, and by which we shall show that in asserting generally
that no God, or son of God, ever descended [among men], he overturns not
only the opinions entertained by the majority of mankind regarding the
manifestation of Deity, but also what was formerly admitted by himself.
For if the general statement, that “no God or son of God has come down
or will come down,” be truly maintained by Celsus, it is manifest that
we have here overthrown the belief in the existence of gods upon the
earth who had descended from heaven either to predict the future to
mankind or to heal them by means of divine responses; and neither the
Pythian Apollo, nor Esculapius, nor any other among those supposed to
have done so, would be a god descended from heaven. He might, indeed,
either be a god who had obtained as his lot [the obligation] to dwell on
earth for ever, and be thus a fugitive, as it were, from the abode of
the gods, or he might be one who had no power to share in the society of
the gods in heaven;[846] or else Apollo, and Esculapius, and those
others who are believed to perform acts on earth, would not be gods, but
only certain demons, much inferior to those wise men among mankind, who
on account of their virtue ascend to the vault[847] of heaven.
Footnote 846:
τοῖς ἐκεῖ θεοῖς.
Footnote 847:
ἁψίδα.
Chapter III.
But observe how, in his desire to subvert our opinions, he who never
acknowledged himself throughout his whole treatise to be an Epicurean,
is convicted of being a deserter to that sect. And now is the time for
you, [reader], who peruse the works of Celsus, and give your assent to
what has been advanced, either to overturn the belief in a God who
visits the human race, and exercises a providence over each individual
man, or to grant this, and prove the falsity of the assertions of
Celsus. If you, then, wholly annihilate providence, you will falsify
those assertions of his in which he grants the existence of “God and a
providence,” in order that you may maintain the truth of your own
position; but if, on the other hand, you still admit the existence of
providence, because you do not assent to the dictum of Celsus, that
“neither has a God nor the son of a God come down nor is to come
down[848] to mankind,” why not rather carefully ascertain from the
statements made regarding Jesus, and the prophecies uttered concerning
Him, who it is that we are to consider as having come down to the human
race as God, and the Son of God?—whether that Jesus who said and
ministered so much, or those who, under pretence of oracles and
divinations, do not reform the morals of their worshippers, but who have
besides apostatized from the pure and holy worship and honour due to the
Maker of all things, and who tear away the souls of those who give heed
to them from the one only visible and true God, under a pretence of
paying honour to a multitude of deities?
Footnote 848:
κατέρχεσθαι.
Chapter IV.
But since he says, in the next place, as if the Jews or Christians had
answered regarding those who come down to visit the human race, that
they were angels: “But if ye say that they are angels, what do you call
them?” he continues, “Are they gods, or some other race of beings?” and
then again introduces us as if answering, “Some other race of beings,
and probably demons,”—let us proceed to notice these remarks. For we
indeed acknowledge that angels are “ministering spirits,” and we say
that “they are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of
salvation;”[849] and that they ascend, bearing the supplications of men,
to the purest of the heavenly places in the universe, or even to
supercelestial regions purer still;[850] and that they come down from
these, conveying to each one, according to his deserts, something
enjoined by God to be conferred by them upon those who are to be the
recipients of His benefits. Having thus learned to call these beings
“angels” from their employments, we find that because they are divine
they are sometimes termed “God” in the sacred Scriptures,[851] but not
so that we are commanded to honour and worship in place of God those who
minister to us, and bear to us His blessings. For every prayer, and
supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to
the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels,
the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and
make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if
we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse
of prayer.[852]
Footnote 849:
Cf. Heb. i. 14.
Footnote 850:
ἐν τοῖς καθαρωτάτοις τοῦ κόσμου χωρίοις ἐπουρανίοις, ἢ καὶ τοῖς τούτων
καθαρωτέροις ὑπερουρανίοις.
Footnote 851:
Cf. Ps. lxxxvi. 8, xcvi. 4, cxxxvi. 2.
Footnote 852:
ἐὰν δυνώμεθα κατακούειν τῆς περὶ προσευχῆς κυριολεξίας καὶ
καταχρήσεως.
Chapter V.
For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their nature
greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason. But,
conformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of them, which is
something wonderful and mysterious, be obtained. Then this knowledge,
making known to us their nature, and the offices to which they are
severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with confidence to any
other than to the Supreme God, who is sufficient for all things, and
that through our Saviour the Son of God, who is the Word, and Wisdom,
and Truth, and everything else which the writings of God’s prophets and
the apostles of Jesus entitle Him. And it is enough to secure that the
holy angels of God be propitious to us, and that they do all things on
our behalf, that our disposition of mind towards God should imitate as
far as it is within the power of human nature the example of these holy
angels, who again follow the example of their God; and that the
conceptions which we entertain of His Son, the Word, so far as
attainable by us, should not be opposed to the clearer conceptions of
Him which the holy angels possess, but should daily approach these in
clearness and distinctness. But because Celsus has not read our Holy
Scriptures, he gives himself an answer as if it came from us, saying
that we “assert that the angels who come down from heaven to confer
benefits on mankind are a different race from the gods,” and adds that
“in all probability they would be called demons by us:” not observing
that the name “demons” is not a term of indifferent meaning like that of
“men,” among whom some are good and some bad, nor yet a term of
excellence like that of “the gods,” which is applied not to wicked
demons, or to statues, or to animals, but (by those who know divine
things) to what is truly divine and blessed; whereas the term “demons”
is always applied to those wicked powers, freed from the encumbrance of
a grosser body, who lead men astray, and fill them with distractions,
and drag them down from God and supercelestial thoughts to things here
below.
Chapter VI.
He next proceeds to make the following statement about the Jews:—“The
first point relating to the Jews which is fitted to excite wonder, is
that they should worship the heaven and the angels who dwell therein,
and yet pass by and neglect its most venerable and powerful parts, as
the sun, and moon, and the other heavenly bodies, both fixed stars and
planets, as if it were possible that ‘the whole’ could be God, and yet
its parts not divine; or [as if it were reasonable] to treat with the
greatest respect those who are said to appear to such as are in darkness
somewhere, blinded by some crooked sorcery, or dreaming dreams through
the influence of shadowy spectres,[853] while those who prophesy so
clearly and strikingly to all men, by means of whom rain, and heat, and
clouds, and thunder (to which they offer worship), and lightnings, and
fruits, and all kinds of productiveness, are brought about,—by means of
whom God is revealed to them,—the most prominent heralds among those
beings that are above,—those that are truly heavenly angels,—are to be
regarded as of no account!” In making these statements, Celsus appears
to have fallen into confusion, and to have penned them from false ideas
of things which he did not understand; for it is patent to all who
investigate the practices of the Jews, and compare them with those of
the Christians, that the Jews who follow the law, which, speaking in the
person of God, says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me: thou
shalt not make unto thee an image, nor a likeness of anything that is in
heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters
under the earth; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them,”[854]
worship nothing else than the Supreme God, who made the heavens, and all
things besides. Now it is evident that those who live according to the
law, and worship the _Maker_ of heaven, will not worship the heaven at
the same time with God. Moreover, no one who obeys the law of Moses will
bow down to the angels who are in heaven; and, in like manner, as they
do not bow down to sun, moon, and stars, the host of heaven, they
refrain also from doing obeisance to heaven and its angels, obeying the
law which declares: “Lest thou lift up thine eyes to heaven, and when
thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of
heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the
Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations.”[855]
Footnote 853:
ἢ τοὺς μὲν ἐν σκότῳ ποῦ ἐκ γοητείας οὐκ ὀρθῆς τυφλώττουσιν, ἢ δι’
ἀμυδρῶν φασμάτων ὀνειρώττουσιν ἐγχρίμπτειν λεγομένους, εὖ μάλα
θρησκεύειν.
Footnote 854:
Cf. Ex. xx. 3, 4, 5.
Footnote 855:
Cf. Deut. iv. 19.
Chapter VII.
Having, moreover, assumed that the Jews consider the heaven to be God,
he adds that this is absurd; finding fault with those who bow down to
the heaven, but not also to the sun, and moon, and stars, saying that
the Jews do this, as if it were possible that “the whole” should be God,
and its several parts not divine. And he seems to call the heaven “a
whole,” and sun, moon, and stars its several parts. Now, certainly
neither Jews nor Christians call the “heaven” God. Let it be granted,
however, that, as he alleges, the heaven _is_ called God by the Jews,
and suppose that sun, moon, and stars _are_ parts of “heaven,”—which is
by no means true, for neither are the animals and plants upon the earth
any portion of it,—how is it true, even according to the opinions of the
Greeks, that if God be a whole, His parts also are divine? Certainly
they say that the Cosmos taken as the whole[856] is God, the Stoics
calling it the First God, the followers of Plato the Second, and some of
them the Third. According to these philosophers, then, seeing the whole
Cosmos is God, its parts also are divine; so that not only are human
beings divine, but the whole of the irrational creation, as being
“_portions_” of the Cosmos; and besides these, the plants also are
divine. And if the rivers, and mountains, and seas are portions of the
Cosmos, then, since the whole Cosmos is God, are the rivers and seas
also gods? But this even the Greeks will not assert. Those, however, who
preside over rivers and seas (either demons or gods, as they call them),
they would term gods. Now from this it follows that the general
statement of Celsus, even according to the Greeks, who hold the doctrine
of Providence, is false, that if any “whole” be a god, its parts
necessarily are divine. But it follows from the doctrine of Celsus, that
if the Cosmos be God, all that is in it is divine, being parts of the
Cosmos. Now, according to this view, animals, as flies, and gnats, and
worms, and every species of serpent, as well as of birds and fishes,
will be divine,—an assertion which would not be made even by those who
maintain that the Cosmos is God. But the Jews, who live according to the
law of Moses, although they may not know how to receive the secret
meaning of the law, which is conveyed in obscure language, will not
maintain that either the heaven or the angels are God.
Footnote 856:
τὸ ὅλον ὁ κόσμος.
Chapter VIII.
As we allege, however, that he has fallen into confusion in consequence
of false notions which he has imbibed, come and let us point them out to
the best of our ability, and show that although Celsus considers it to
be a Jewish custom to bow down to the heaven and the angels in it, such
a practice is not at all Jewish, but is in violation of Judaism, as it
also is to do obeisance to sun, moon, and stars, as well as images. You
will find at least in the book of Jeremiah the words of God censuring by
the mouth of the prophet the Jewish people for doing obeisance to such
objects, and for sacrificing to the queen of heaven, and to all the host
of heaven.[857] The writings of the Christians, moreover, show, in
censuring the sins committed among the Jews, that when God abandoned
that people on account of certain sins, these sins [of idol-worship]
also were committed by them. For it is related in the Acts of the
Apostles regarding the Jews, that “God turned, and gave them up to
worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the
prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and
sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took
up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures
which you made to worship them.”[858] And in the writings of Paul, who
was carefully trained in Jewish customs, and converted afterwards to
Christianity by a miraculous appearance of Jesus, the following words
may be read in the Epistle to the Colossians: “Let no man beguile you of
your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding
into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his
fleshly mind; and not holding the head, from which all the body by joint
and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth
with the increase of God.”[859] But Celsus, having neither read these
verses, nor having learned their contents from any other source, has
represented, I know not how, the Jews as not transgressing their law in
bowing down to the heavens, and to the angels therein.
Footnote 857:
Cf. Jer. vii. 17, 18.
Footnote 858:
Cf. Acts vii. 42, 43.
Footnote 859:
Cf. Col. ii. 18, 19.
Chapter IX.
And still continuing a little confused, and not taking care to see what
was relevant to the matter, he expressed his opinion that the Jews were
induced by the incantations employed in jugglery and sorcery (in
consequence of which certain phantoms appear, in obedience to the spells
employed by the magicians) to bow down to the angels in heaven, not
observing that this was contrary to their law, which said to them who
practised such observances: “Regard not them which have familiar
spirits,[860] neither seek after wizards,[861] to be defiled by them: I
am the Lord your God.”[862] He ought, therefore, either not to have at
all attributed this practice to the Jews, seeing he has observed that
they keep their law, and has called them “those who live according to
their law;” or if he did attribute it, he ought to have shown that the
Jews did this in violation of their code. But again, as they transgress
their law who offer worship to those who are said to appear to them who
are involved in darkness and blinded by sorcery, and who dream dreams,
owing to obscure phantoms presenting themselves; so also do they
transgress the law who offer sacrifice to sun, moon, and stars.[863] And
there is thus great inconsistency in the same individual saying that the
Jews are careful to keep their law by not bowing down to sun, and moon,
and stars, while they are not so careful to keep it in the matter of
heaven and the angels.
Footnote 860:
ἐγγαστριμύθοις.
Footnote 861:
ἐπαοιδοῖς.
Footnote 862:
Cf. Lev. xix. 31.
Footnote 863:
The emendations of Ruæus have been adopted in the translation, the
text being probably corrupt. Cf. Ruæus, _in loc._
Chapter X.
And if it be necessary for us to offer a defence of our refusal to
recognise as gods, equally with angels, and sun, and moon, and stars,
those who are called by the Greeks “manifest and visible” divinities, we
shall answer that the law of Moses knows that these latter have been
apportioned by God among all the nations under the heaven, but not
amongst those who were selected by God as His chosen people above all
the nations of the earth. For it is written in the book of Deuteronomy:
“And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the
sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst
be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath
divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. But the Lord hath taken
us, and brought us forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to
be unto Him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.”[864] The
Hebrew people, then, being called by God a “chosen generation, and a
royal priesthood, and a holy nation, and a purchased people,”[865]
regarding whom it was foretold to Abraham by the voice of the Lord
addressed to him, “Look now towards heaven, and tell the stars, if thou
be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed
be;”[866] and having thus a hope that they would become as the stars of
heaven, were not likely to bow down to those objects which they were to
resemble as a result of their understanding and observing the law of
God. For it was said to them: “The Lord our God hath multiplied us; and,
behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude.”[867] In
the book of Daniel, also, the following prophecies are found relating to
those who are to share in the resurrection: “And at that time thy people
shall be delivered, every one that has been written in the book. And
many of them that sleep in the dust[868] of the earth shall awake; some
to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And
they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and
[those] of the many righteous[869] as the stars for ever and ever,”[870]
etc. And hence Paul, too, when speaking of the resurrection, says: “And
there are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory
of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and
another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in
glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.”[871] It was not
therefore consonant to reason that those who had been taught
sublimely[872] to ascend above all created things, and to hope for the
enjoyment of the most glorious rewards with God on account of their
virtuous lives, and who had heard the words, “Ye are the light of the
world,”[873] and, “Let your light so shine before men, that they, seeing
your good works, may glorify your Father who is in heaven,”[874] and who
possessed through practice this brilliant and unfading wisdom, or who
had secured even the “very reflection of everlasting light,”[875] should
be so impressed with the [mere] _visible_ light of sun, and moon, and
stars, that, on account of that sensible light of theirs, they should
deem themselves (although possessed of so great a rational light of
knowledge, and of the true light, and the light of the world, and the
light of men) to be somehow inferior to them, and to bow down to them;
seeing they ought to be worshipped, if they are to receive worship at
all, not for the sake of the sensible light which is admired by the
multitude, but because of the rational and true light, if indeed the
stars in heaven are rational and virtuous beings, and have been
illuminated with the light of knowledge by that wisdom which is the
“reflection of everlasting light.” For that sensible light of theirs is
the work of the Creator of all things, while that rational light is
derived perhaps from the principle of free-will within them.[876]
Footnote 864:
Cf. Deut. iv. 19, 20.
Footnote 865:
Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9.
Footnote 866:
Cf. Gen. xv. 5.
Footnote 867:
Cf. Deut. i. 10.
Footnote 868:
χώματι.
Footnote 869:
ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν.
Footnote 870:
Cf. Dan. xii. 1, 2, 3.
Footnote 871:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 40-42.
Footnote 872:
μεγαλοφυῶς.
Footnote 873:
Matt. v. 14.
Footnote 874:
Cf. Matt. v. 16.
Footnote 875:
Cf. Origen, _de Principiis_, i. c. vii.
Footnote 876:
ἐκ τοῦ ἐν αὐτοῖς αὐτεξουσίου ἐληλυθός.
Chapter XI.
But even this rational light itself ought not to be worshipped by him
who beholds and understands the true light, by sharing in which these
also are enlightened; nor by him who beholds God, the Father of the true
light,—of whom it has been said, “God is light, and in Him there is no
darkness at all.”[877] Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon, and stars
because their light is visible and celestial, would not bow down to a
spark of fire or a lamp upon earth, because they see the incomparable
superiority of those objects which are deemed worthy of homage to the
light of sparks and lamps. So those who understand that God is light,
and who have apprehended that the Son of God is “the true light which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” and who comprehend also
how He says, “I am the light of the world,” would not rationally offer
worship to that which is, as it were, a spark in sun, moon, and stars,
in comparison with God, who is light of the true light. Nor is it with a
view to depreciate these great works of God’s creative power, or to call
them, after the fashion of Anaxagoras, “fiery masses,”[878] that we thus
speak of sun, and moon, and stars; but because we perceive the
inexpressible superiority of the divinity of God, and that of His
only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other things. And being persuaded
that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God
through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those
beings who themselves offer up prayers [to God], seeing even they
themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God
to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or
apportion our power of prayer[879] between God and them. And here I may
employ this illustration, as bearing upon this point: Our Lord and
Saviour, hearing Himself on one occasion addressed as “Good
Master,”[880] referring him who used it to His own Father, said, “Why
callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God the
Father.”[881] And since it was in accordance with sound reason that this
should be said by the Son of His Father’s love, as being the image of
the goodness of God, why should not the sun say with greater reason to
those that bow down to him, Why do you worship me? “for thou wilt
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve;”[882] for it is
He whom I and all who are with me serve and worship. And although one
may not be so exalted [as the sun], nevertheless let such an one pray to
the Word of God (who is able to heal him), and still more to His Father,
who also to the righteous of former times “sent His word, and healed
them, and delivered them from their destructions.”[883]
Footnote 877:
Cf. 1 John i. 5.
Footnote 878:
μύδρον διάπυρον.
Footnote 879:
τὴν εὐκτικὴν δύναμιν.
Footnote 880:
Cf. Matt. xix. 17; cf. Mark x. 18.
Footnote 881:
Ibid.
Footnote 882:
Cf. Deut. vi. 13.
Footnote 883:
Cf. Ps. cvii. 20.
Chapter XII.
God accordingly, in His kindness, condescends to mankind, not in any
local sense, but through His providence;[884] while the Son of God, not
only [when on earth], but at _all_ times, is with His own disciples,
fulfilling the promise, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
the world.”[885] And if a branch cannot bear fruit except it abide in
the vine, it is evident that the disciples also of the Word, who are the
rational branches of the Word’s true vine, cannot produce the fruits of
virtue unless they abide in the true vine, the Christ of God, who is
with us locally here below upon the earth, and who is with those who
cleave to Him in all parts of the world, and is also in all places with
those who do not know Him. Another is made manifest by that John who
wrote the Gospel, when, speaking in the person of John the Baptist, he
said, “There standeth one among you whom ye know not; He it is who
cometh after me.”[886] And it is absurd, when He who fills heaven and
earth, and who said, “Do I not fill heaven and earth? saith the
Lord,”[887] is with us, and near us (for I believe Him when He says, “I
am a God nigh at hand, and not afar off, saith the Lord”[888]), to seek
to pray to sun or moon, or one of the stars, whose influence does not
reach the whole of the world.[889] But, to use the very words of Celsus,
let it be granted that “the sun, moon, and stars _do_ foretell rain, and
heat, and clouds, and thunders,” why, then, if they really do foretell
such great things, ought we not rather to do homage to God, whose
servant they are in uttering these predictions, and show reverence to
_Him_ rather than His _prophets_? Let them predict, then, the approach
of lightnings, and fruits, and all manner of productions, and let all
such things be under their administration; yet we shall not on that
account worship those who themselves offer worship, as we do not worship
even Moses, and those prophets who came from God after him, and who
predicted better things than rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunders,
and lightnings, and fruits, and all sorts of productions visible to the
senses. Nay, even if sun, and moon, and stars were able to prophesy
better things than rain, not even then shall we worship _them_, but the
_Father_ of the prophecies which are in them, and the _Word_ of God,
their minister. But grant that they are His heralds, and truly
messengers of heaven, why, even then ought we not to worship the _God_
whom they only proclaim and announce, rather than those who are the
_heralds_ and _messengers_?
Footnote 884:
προνοητικῶς.
Footnote 885:
Matt. xxviii. 20.
Footnote 886:
Cf. John i. 26, 27.
Footnote 887:
Cf. Jer. xxiii. 24.
Footnote 888:
Cf. Jer. xxiii. 23.
Footnote 889:
ζητεῖν εὔχεσθαι τῷ μὴ φθάνοντι ἐπὶ τὰ σύμπαντα.
Chapter XIII.
Celsus, moreover, assumes that sun, and moon, and stars are regarded by
us as of no account. Now, with regard to these, we acknowledge that they
too are “waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God,” being for
the present subjected to the “vanity” of their material bodies, “by
reason of Him who has subjected the same in hope.”[890] But if Celsus
had read the innumerable other passages where we speak of sun, moon, and
stars, and especially these,—“Praise Him, all ye stars, and thou, O
light,”[891] and, “Praise Him, ye heaven of heavens,”—he would not have
said of us that we regard such mighty beings, which “greatly praise” the
Lord God, as of no account. Nor did Celsus know the passage: “For the
earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the
sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly,
but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope; because the
creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”[892] And with these
words let us terminate our defence against the charge of not worshipping
sun, moon, and stars. And let us now bring forward those statements of
his which follow, that we may, God willing, address to him in reply such
arguments as shall be suggested by the light of truth.
Footnote 890:
Cf. Rom. viii. 19-21.
Footnote 891:
Cf. Ps. cxlviii. 3.
Footnote 892:
Cf. Rom. viii. 19-21.
Chapter XIV.
The following, then, are his words: “It is folly on their part to
suppose that when God, as if He were a cook,[893] introduces the fire
[which is to consume the world], all the rest of the human race will be
burnt up, while they alone will remain, not only such of them as are
then alive, but also those who are long since dead, which latter will
arise from the earth clothed with the self-same flesh [as during life];
for such a hope is simply one which might be cherished by worms. For
what sort of human soul is that which would still long for a body that
had been subject to corruption? Whence, also, this opinion of yours is
not shared by some of the Christians, and they pronounce it to be
exceedingly vile, and loathsome, and impossible; for what kind of body
is that which, after being completely corrupted, can return to its
original nature, and to that self-same first condition out of which it
fell into dissolution? Being unable to return any answer, they betake
themselves to a most absurd refuge, viz. that all things are possible to
God. And yet God _cannot_ do things that are disgraceful, nor does He
wish to do things that are contrary to His nature; nor, if (in
accordance with the wickedness of your own heart) you desired anything
that was evil, would God accomplish it; nor must you believe at once
that it will be done. For God does not rule the world in order to
satisfy inordinate desires, or to allow disorder and confusion, but to
govern a nature that is upright and just.[894] For the _soul_, indeed,
He might be able to provide an everlasting life; while dead _bodies_, on
the contrary, are, as Heraclitus observes, more worthless than dung.
God, however, neither can nor will declare, contrary to all reason, that
the flesh, which is full of those things which it is not even honourable
to mention, is to exist for ever. For He is the reason of all things
that exist, and therefore can do nothing either contrary to reason or
contrary to Himself.”
Footnote 893:
ὥσπερ μάγειρος.
Footnote 894:
οὐ γὰρ τῆς πλημμελοῦς ὀρέξεως, οὐδὲ τῆς πεπλανημένης ἀκοσμίας, ἀλλὰ
τῆς ὀρθῆς καὶ δικαίας φύσεως Θεός ἐστιν ἀρχηγέτης.
Chapter XV.
Observe, now, here at the very beginning, how, in ridiculing the
doctrine of a conflagration of the world, held by certain of the Greeks
who have treated the subject in a philosophic spirit not to be
depreciated, he would make us, “representing God, as it were, as a cook,
hold the belief in a general conflagration;” not perceiving that, as
certain Greeks were of opinion (perhaps having received their
information from the ancient nation of the Hebrews), it is a
purificatory fire which is brought upon the world, and probably also on
each one of those who stand in need of chastisement by the fire and
healing at the same time, seeing it _burns_ indeed, but does not
_consume_, those who are without a material body,[895] which needs to be
consumed by that fire, and which burns and consumes those who by their
actions, words, and thoughts have built up wood, or hay, or stubble, in
that which is figuratively termed a “building.”[896] And the Holy
Scriptures say that the Lord will, like a refiner’s fire and fuller’s
soap,[897] visit each one of those who require purification, because of
the intermingling in them of a flood of wicked matter proceeding from
their evil nature; who need fire, I mean, to refine, as it were, [the
dross of] those who are intermingled with copper, and tin, and lead. And
he who likes may learn this from the prophet Ezekiel.[898] But that we
say that God brings fire upon the world, not like a cook, but like a
God, who is the benefactor of them who stand in need of the discipline
of fire,[899] will be testified by the prophet Isaiah, in whose writings
it is related that a sinful nation was thus addressed: “Because thou
hast coals of fire, sit upon them: they shall be to thee a help.”[900]
Now the Scripture is appropriately adapted to the multitudes of those
who are to peruse it, because it speaks obscurely of things that are sad
and gloomy,[901] in order to terrify those who cannot by any other means
be saved from the flood of their sins, although even then the attentive
reader will clearly discover the end that is to be accomplished by these
sad and painful punishments upon those who endure them. It is
sufficient, however, for the present to quote the words of Isaiah: “For
my name’s sake will I show mine anger, and my glory I will bring upon
thee, that I may not destroy thee.”[902] We have thus been under the
necessity of referring in obscure terms to questions not fitted to the
capacity of simple believers, who require a simpler instruction in
words, that we might not appear to leave unrefuted the accusation of
Celsus, that “God introduces the fire, [which is to destroy the world],
as if He were a cook.”
Footnote 895:
ὕλην.
Footnote 896:
Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12.
Footnote 897:
Cf. Mal. iii. 2.
Footnote 898:
Cf. Ezek. xxii. 18, 20.
Footnote 899:
πόνου καὶ πυρός.
Footnote 900:
Cf. Isa. xlvii. 14, 15.
Footnote 901:
τὰ σκυθρωπά.
Footnote 902:
Cf. Isa. xlviii. 9 (Septuagint).
Chapter XVI.
From what has been said, it will be manifest to intelligent hearers how
we have to answer the following: “All the rest of the race will be
completely burnt up, and they alone will remain.” It is not to be
wondered at, indeed, if such thoughts have been entertained by those
amongst us who are called in Scripture the “foolish things” of the
world, and “base things,” and “things which are despised,” and “things
which are not,” because “by the foolishness of preaching it pleased God
to save them that believe on Him, after that, in the wisdom of God, the
world by wisdom knew not God,”[903]—because such individuals are unable
to see distinctly the sense of each particular passage,[904] or
unwilling to devote the necessary leisure to the investigation of
Scripture, notwithstanding the injunction of Jesus, “Search the
Scriptures.”[905] The following, moreover, are his ideas regarding the
fire which is to be brought upon the world by God, and the punishments
which are to befall sinners. And perhaps, as it is appropriate to
children that some things should be addressed to them in a manner
befitting their infantile condition, to convert them, as being of very
tender age, to a better course of life; so, to those whom the word terms
“the foolish things of the world,” and “the base,” and “the despised,”
the just and obvious meaning of the passages relating to punishments is
suitable, inasmuch as they cannot receive any other mode of conversion
than that which is by fear and the presentation of punishment, and thus
be saved from the many evils [which would befall them].[906] The
Scripture accordingly declares that only those who are unscathed by the
fire and the punishments are to remain,—those, viz., whose opinions, and
morals, and mind have been purified to the highest degree; while, on the
other hand, those of a different nature—those, viz., who, according to
their deserts, require the administration of punishment by fire—will be
involved in these sufferings with a view to an end which it is suitable
for God to bring upon those who have been created in His image, but who
have lived in opposition to the will of that nature which is according
to His image. And this is our answer to the statement, “All the rest of
the race will be completely burnt up, but they alone are to remain.”
Footnote 903:
Cf. 1 Cor. i. 21.
Footnote 904:
τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους.
Footnote 905:
Cf. John v. 39.
Footnote 906:
καὶ τῶν πολλῶν κακῶν ἀποχήν.
Chapter XVII.
Then, in the next place, having either himself misunderstood the sacred
Scriptures, or those [interpreters] by whom they were not understood, he
proceeds to assert that “it is said by us that there will remain at the
time of the visitation which is to come upon the world by the fire of
purification, not only those who are then alive, but also those who are
long ago dead;” not observing that it is with a secret kind of wisdom
that it was said by the apostle of Jesus: “We shall not all sleep, but
we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”[907] Now he ought to have
noticed what was the meaning of him who uttered these words, as being
one who was by no means dead, who made a distinction between himself and
those like him and the dead, and who said afterwards, “The dead shall be
raised incorruptible,” and “we shall be changed.” And as a proof that
such was the apostle’s meaning in writing those words which I have
quoted from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, I will quote also from
the First to the Thessalonians, in which Paul, as one who is alive and
awake, and different from those who are asleep, speaks as follows: “For
this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and
remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who are
asleep; for the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.”[908] Then,
again, after this, knowing that there were others dead in Christ besides
himself and such as he, he subjoins the words, “The dead in Christ shall
rise first; then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together
with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.”[909]
Footnote 907:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.
Footnote 908:
Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 15, 16.
Footnote 909:
Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.
Chapter XVIII.
But since he has ridiculed at great length the doctrine of the
resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the churches, and
which is more clearly understood by the more intelligent believer; and
as it is unnecessary again to quote his words, which have been already
adduced, let us, with regard to the problem[910] (as in an apologetic
work directed against an alien from the faith, and for the sake of those
who are still “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every
wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby
they lie in wait to deceive”[911]), state and establish to the best of
our ability a few points expressly intended for our readers. Neither we,
then, nor the Holy Scriptures, assert that with the same bodies, without
a change to a higher condition, “shall those who were long dead arise
from the earth and live again;” for in so speaking, Celsus makes a false
charge against us. For we may listen to many passages of Scripture
treating of the resurrection in a manner worthy of God, although it may
suffice for the present to quote the language of Paul from the First
Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says: “But some man will say, How
are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that
which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou
sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may
chance of wheat, or of some other grain; but God giveth it a body as it
hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.”[912] Now, observe how
in these words he says that there is sown, “not that body that shall
be;” but that of the body which is sown and cast naked into the earth
(God giving to each seed its own body), there takes place as it were a
resurrection: from the seed that was cast into the ground there arising
a stalk, _e.g._ among such plants as the following, viz. the mustard
plant, or of a larger tree, as in the olive,[913] or one of the
fruit-trees.
Footnote 910:
περὶ τοῦ προβλήματος τούτου.
Footnote 911:
Cf. Eph. iv. 14.
Footnote 912:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 35-38.
Footnote 913:
ἐν ἐλαίας πυρῆνι.
Chapter XIX.
God, then, gives to each thing its own body as He pleases: as in the
case of plants that are sown, so also in the case of those beings who
are, as it were, sown in dying, and who in due time receive, out of what
has been “sown,” the body assigned by God to each one according to his
deserts. And we may hear, moreover, the Scripture teaching us at great
length the difference between that which is, as it were, “sown,” and
that which is, as it were, “raised” from it, in these words: “It is sown
in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it
is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is
sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”[914] And let him
who has the capacity understand the meaning of the words: “As is the
earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such
are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the
earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”[915] And although
the apostle wished to conceal the secret meaning of the passage, which
was not adapted to the simpler class of believers, and to the
understanding of the common people, who are led by their faith to enter
on a better course of life, he was nevertheless obliged afterwards to
say (in order that we might not misapprehend his meaning), after “Let us
bear the image of the heavenly,” these words also: “Now this I say,
brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”[916] Then, knowing that
there was a secret and mystical meaning in the passage, as was becoming
in one who was leaving, in his epistles, to those who were to come after
him words full of significance, he subjoins the following, “Behold, I
show you a mystery;”[917] which is his usual style in introducing
matters of a profounder and more mystical nature, and such as are
fittingly concealed from the multitude, as is written in the book of
Tobit: “It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to
reveal the works of God,”[918]—in a way consistent with truth and God’s
glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude. Our hope,
then, is _not_ “the hope of worms, nor does our soul long for a body
that has seen corruption;” for although it may require a body, for the
sake of moving from place to place,[919] yet it understands (as having
meditated on the wisdom [that is from above], agreeably to the
declaration, “The mouth of the righteous will speak wisdom”[920]) the
difference between the “earthly house,” in which is the tabernacle of
the building that is to be dissolved, and that in which the righteous do
groan, being burdened,—not wishing to “put off” the tabernacle, but to
be “clothed therewith,” that by being clothed upon, mortality might be
swallowed up of life. For, in virtue of the whole nature of the body
being corruptible, the corruptible tabernacle must put on incorruption;
and its other part, being mortal, and becoming liable to the death which
follows sin, must put on immortality, in order that, when the
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal immortality,
then shall come to pass what was predicted of old by the prophets,—the
annihilation of the “victory” of death (because it had conquered and
subjected us to his sway), and of its “sting,” with which it stings the
imperfectly defended soul, and inflicts upon it the wounds which result
from sin.
Footnote 914:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43.
Footnote 915:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 48, 49.
Footnote 916:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 49.
Footnote 917:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 50.
Footnote 918:
Cf. Tobit xii. 7.
Footnote 919:
διὰ τὰς τοπικὰς μεταβάσεις.
Footnote 920:
Cf. Ps. xxxvii. 30.
Chapter XX.
But since our views regarding the resurrection have, as far as time
would permit, been stated in part on the present occasion (for we have
systematically examined the subject in greater detail in other parts of
our writings); and as now we must by means of sound reasoning refute the
fallacies of Celsus, who neither understands the meaning of our
Scripture, nor has the capacity of judging that the meaning of our wise
men is not to be determined by those individuals who make no profession
of anything more than of a [simple] faith in the Christian system, let
us show that men, not to be lightly esteemed on account of their
reasoning powers and dialectic subtleties, have given expression to very
absurd[921] opinions. And if we must sneer[922] at them as contemptible
old wives’ fables, it is at them rather than at our narrative that we
must sneer. The disciples of the Porch assert, that after a period of
years there will be a conflagration of the world, and after that an
arrangement of things in which everything will be unchanged, as compared
with the former arrangement of the world. Those of them, however, who
evinced their respect for this doctrine have said that there will be a
change, although exceedingly slight, at the end of the cycle, from what
prevailed during the preceding. And these men maintain, that in the
succeeding cycle the same things will occur, and Socrates will be again
the son of Sophroniscus, and a native of Athens; and Phænarete, being
married to Sophroniscus, will again become his mother. And although they
do not mention the word “resurrection,” they show in reality that
Socrates, who derived his origin from seed, will spring from that of
Sophroniscus, and will be fashioned in the womb of Phænarete; and being
brought up at Athens, will practise the study of philosophy, as if his
former philosophy had arisen again, and were to be in no respect
different from what it was before. Anytus and Melitus, too, will arise
again as accusers of Socrates, and the Council of Areopagus will condemn
him to death! But what is more ridiculous still, is that Socrates will
clothe himself with garments not at all different from those which he
wore during the former cycle, and will live in the same unchanged state
of poverty, and in the same unchanged city of Athens! And Phalaris will
again play the tyrant, and his brazen bull will pour forth its
bellowings from the voices of victims within, unchanged from those who
were condemned in the former cycle! And Alexander of Pheræ, too, will
again act the tyrant with a cruelty unaltered from the former time, and
will condemn to death the same “unchanged” individuals as before. But
what need is there to go into detail upon the doctrine held by the Stoic
philosophers on such things, and which escapes the ridicule of Celsus,
and is perhaps even venerated by him, since he regards Zeno as a wiser
man than Jesus?
Footnote 921:
σφόδρ’ ἀπεμφαίνοντα.
Footnote 922:
μυχθίζειν.
Chapter XXI.
The disciples of Pythagoras, too, and of Plato, although they appear to
hold the incorruptibility of the world, yet fall into similar errors.
For as the planets, after certain definite cycles, assume the same
positions, and hold the same relations to one another, all things on
earth will, they assert, be like what they were at the time when the
same state of planetary relations existed in the world. From this view
it necessarily follows, that when, after the lapse of a lengthened
cycle, the planets come to occupy towards each other the same relations
which they occupied in the time of Socrates, Socrates will again be born
of the same parents, and suffer the same treatment, being accused by
Anytus and Melitus, and condemned by the Council of Areopagus! The
learned among the Egyptians, moreover, hold similar views, and yet they
are treated with respect, and do not incur the ridicule of Celsus and
such as he; while we, who maintain that all things are administered by
God in proportion to the relation of the free-will of each individual,
and are ever being brought into a better condition, so far as they admit
of being so,[923] and who know that the nature of our free-will admits
of the occurrence of contingent events[924] (for it is incapable of
receiving the wholly unchangeable character of God), yet do not appear
to say anything worthy of a testing examination.
Footnote 923:
κατὰ τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον.
Footnote 924:
καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν φύσιν γιγνώσκοντες ἐνδεχομένον ἃ ἐνδέχεται.
Chapter XXII.
Let no one, however, suspect that, in speaking as we do, we belong to
those who are indeed called Christians, but who set aside the doctrine
of the resurrection as it is taught in Scripture. For these persons
cannot, so far as their principles apply, at all establish that the
stalk or tree which springs up comes from the grain of wheat, or
anything else [which was cast into the ground]; whereas we, who believe
that that which is “sown” is not “quickened” unless it die, and that
there is sown not that body that shall be (for God gives it a body as it
pleases Him, raising it in incorruption after it is sown in corruption;
and after it is sown in dishonour, raising it in glory; and after it is
sown in weakness, raising it in power; and after it is sown a natural
body, raising it a spiritual),—we preserve both the doctrine[925] of the
church of Christ and the grandeur of the divine promise, proving also
the possibility of its accomplishment not by mere assertion, but by
arguments; knowing that although heaven and earth, and the things that
are in them, may pass away, yet His words regarding each individual
thing, being, as parts of a whole, or species of a genus, the utterances
of Him who was God the Word, who was in the beginning with God, shall by
no means pass away. For we desire to listen to Him who said: “Heaven and
earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”[926]
Footnote 925:
βούλημα.
Footnote 926:
Cf. Matt. xxiv. 35; cf. Mark xiii. 31.
Chapter XXIII.
We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone
corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the grain of wheat
which has decayed returns to its former condition. But we do maintain,
that as above the grain of wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain
power[927] is implanted in the body, which is not destroyed, and from
which the body is raised up in incorruption. The philosophers of the
Porch, however, in consequence of the opinions which they hold regarding
the unchangeableness of things after a certain cycle, assert that the
body, after undergoing complete corruption, will return to its original
condition, and will again assume that first nature from which it passed
into a state of dissolution, establishing these points, as they think,
by irresistible arguments.[928] We, however, do not betake ourselves to
a most absurd refuge, saying that with God _all_ things are possible;
for we know how to understand this word “all” as not referring either to
things that are “non-existent” or that are inconceivable. But we
maintain, at the same time, that God cannot do what is disgraceful,
since then He would be capable of ceasing to be God; for if He do
anything that is disgraceful, He is not God. Since, however, he lays it
down as a principle, that “God does not desire what is contrary to
nature,” we have to make a distinction, and say that if any one asserts
that wickedness is contrary to nature, while we maintain that “God does
not desire what is contrary to nature,”—either what springs from
wickedness or from an irrational principle,—yet, if such things happen
according to the word and will of God, we must at once necessarily hold
that they are not contrary to nature. Therefore things which are done by
God, although they may be, or may _appear_ to some to be incredible, are
not contrary to nature. And if we must press the force of words,[929] we
would say that, in comparison with what is generally understood as
“nature,” there _are_ certain things which are _beyond_ its power, which
God could at any time do; as, _e.g._, in raising man above the level of
human nature, and causing him to pass into a better and more divine
condition, and preserving him in the same, so long as he who is the
object of His care shows by his actions that he desires [the continuance
of His help].
Footnote 927:
λόγος.
Footnote 928:
διαλεκτικαῖς ἀνάγκαις.
Footnote 929:
εἰ δὲ χρὴ βεβιασμένως ὀνομάσαι.
Chapter XXIV.
Moreover, as we have already said that for God to desire anything
unbecoming Himself would be destructive of His existence as Deity, we
will add that if man, agreeably to the wickedness of his nature, should
desire anything that is abominable,[930] God cannot grant it. And now it
is from no spirit of contention that we answer the assertions of Celsus;
but it is in the spirit of truth that we investigate them, as assenting
to his view that “He is the God, not of inordinate desires, nor of error
and disorder, but of a nature just and upright,” because He is the
source of all that is good. And that He is able to provide an eternal
life for the soul we acknowledge; and that He possesses not only the
“power,” but the “will.” In view, therefore, of these considerations, we
are not at all distressed by the assertion of Heraclitus, adopted by
Celsus, that “dead bodies are to be cast out as more worthless than
dung;” and yet, with reference even to this, one might say that dung,
indeed, ought to be cast out, while the dead bodies of men, on account
of the soul by which they were inhabited, especially if it had been
virtuous, ought not to be cast out. For, in harmony with those laws
which are based upon the principles of equity, bodies are deemed worthy
of sepulture, with the honours accorded on such occasions, that no
insult, so far as can be helped, may be offered to the soul which dwelt
within, by casting forth the body (after the soul has departed) like
that of the animals. Let it not then be held, contrary to reason, that
it is the will of God to declare that the grain of wheat is not
immortal, but the stalk which springs from it, while the body which is
sown in corruption is not, but that which is raised by Him in
incorruption. But according to Celsus, God Himself is the reason of all
things, while according to our view it is His Son, of whom we say in
philosophic language, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God;”[931] while in our judgment also, God
cannot do anything which is contrary to reason, or contrary to Himself.
Footnote 930:
βδελυρὸν.
Footnote 931:
Cf. John i. 1.
Chapter XXV.
Let us next notice the statements of Celsus, which follow the preceding,
and which are as follow: “As the Jews, then, became a peculiar people,
and enacted laws in keeping with the customs of their country,[932] and
maintain them up to the present time, and observe a mode of worship
which, whatever be its nature, is yet derived from their fathers, they
act in these respects like other men, because each nation retains its
ancestral customs, whatever they are, if they happen to be established
among them. And such an arrangement appears to be advantageous, not only
because it has occurred to the mind of other nations to decide some
things differently, but also because it is a duty to protect what has
been established for the public advantage; and also because, in all
probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning
allotted to different superintending spirits,[933] and were thus
distributed among certain governing powers,[934] and in this manner the
administration of the world is carried on. And whatever is done among
each nation in this way would be rightly done, wherever it was agreeable
to the wishes [of the superintending powers], while it would be an act
of impiety to get rid of[935] the institutions established from the
beginning in the various places.” By these words Celsus shows that the
Jews, who were formerly Egyptians, subsequently became a “peculiar
people,” and enacted laws which they carefully preserve. And not to
repeat his statements, which have been already before us, he says that
it is advantageous to the Jews to observe their ancestral worship, as
other nations carefully attend to theirs. And he further states a deeper
reason why it is of advantage to the Jews to cultivate their ancestral
customs, in hinting dimly that those to whom was allotted the office of
superintending the country which was being legislated for, enacted the
laws of each land in co-operation with its legislators. He appears,
then, to indicate that both the country of the Jews, and the nation
which inhabits it, are superintended by one or more beings, who, whether
they were one or more, co-operated with Moses, and enacted the laws of
the Jews.
Footnote 932:
καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐπιχώριον νόμους θέμενοι.
Footnote 933:
τὰ μέρη τῆς γῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄλλα ἄλλοις ἐπόπταις νενεμημένα.
Footnote 934:
καὶ κατά τινας ἐπικρατείας διειλημμένα.
Footnote 935:
παραλύειν.
Chapter XXVI.
“We must,” he says, “observe the laws, not only because it has occurred
to the mind of others to decide some things differently, but because it
is a duty to protect what has been enacted for the public advantage, and
also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were
from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and
were distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the
administration of the world is carried on.” Thus Celsus, as if he had
forgotten what he had said against the Jews, now includes them in the
general eulogy which he passes upon all who observe their ancestral
customs, remarking: “And whatever is done among each nation in this way,
would be rightly done whenever agreeable to the wishes [of the
superintendents].” And observe here, whether he does not openly, so far
as he can, express a wish that the Jew should live in the observance of
his own laws, and not depart from them, because he would commit an act
of impiety if he apostatized; for his words are: “It would be an act of
impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in
the various places.” Now I should like to ask him, and those who
entertain his views, who it was that distributed the various quarters of
the earth from the beginning among the different superintending spirits;
and especially, who gave the country of the Jews, and the Jewish people
themselves, to the one or more superintendents to whom it was allotted?
Was it, as Celsus would say, Jupiter who assigned the Jewish people and
their country to a certain spirit or spirits? And was it _his_ wish, to
whom they were thus assigned, to enact among them the laws which
prevail, or was it _against_ his will that it was done? You will observe
that, whatever be his answer, he is in a strait. But if the various
quarters of the earth were _not_ allotted by some one being to the
various superintending spirits, then each one at random, and without the
superintendence of a higher power, divided the earth according to
chance; and yet such a view is absurd, and destructive in no small
degree of the providence of the God who presides over all things.
Chapter XXVII.
Any one, indeed, who chooses, may relate how the various quarters of the
earth, being distributed among certain governing powers, are
administered by those who superintend them; but let him tell us also how
what is done among each nation is done rightly when agreeable to the
wishes of the superintendents. Let him, for example, tell us whether the
laws of the Scythians, which permit the murder of parents, are right
laws; or those of the Persians, which do not forbid the marriages of
sons with their mothers, or of daughters with their own fathers. But
what need is there for me to make selections from those who have been
engaged in the business of enacting laws among the different nations,
and to inquire how the laws are rightly enacted among each, according as
they please the superintending powers? Let Celsus, however, tell us how
it would be an act of impiety to get rid of those ancestral laws which
permit the marriages of mothers and daughters; or which pronounce a man
happy who puts an end to his life by hanging, or declare that they
undergo entire purification who deliver themselves over to the fire, and
who terminate their existence by fire; and how it is an act of impiety
to do away with those laws which, for example, prevail in the Tauric
Chersonese, regarding the offering up of strangers in sacrifice to
Diana, or among certain of the Libyan tribes regarding the sacrifice of
children to Saturn. Moreover, this inference follows from the dictum of
Celsus, that it is an act of impiety on the part of the Jews to do away
with those ancestral laws which forbid the worship of any other deity
than the Creator of all things. And it will follow, according to his
view, that piety is not divine by its own nature, but by a certain
[external] arrangement and appointment. For it is an act of piety among
certain tribes to worship a crocodile, and to eat what is an object of
adoration among other tribes; while, again, with others it is a pious
act to worship a calf, and among others, again, to regard the goat as a
god. And, in this way, the same individual will be regarded as acting
piously according to one set of laws, and impiously according to
another; and this is the most absurd result that can be conceived!
Chapter XXVIII.
It is probable, however, that to such remarks as the above, the answer
returned would be, that he was pious who kept the laws of his _own_
country, and not at all chargeable with impiety for the non-observance
of those of _other_ lands; and that, again, he who was deemed guilty of
impiety among certain nations was not really so, when he worshipped his
own gods, agreeably to his country’s laws, although he made war against,
and even feasted on,[936] those who were regarded as divinities among
those nations which possessed laws of an opposite kind. Now, observe
here whether these statements do not exhibit the greatest confusion of
mind regarding the nature of what is just, and holy, and religious;
since there is no accurate definition laid down of these things, nor are
they described as having a peculiar character of their own, and stamping
as religious those who act according to their injunctions. If, then,
religion, and piety, and righteousness belong to those things which are
so only by comparison, so that the same act may be both pious and
impious, according to different relations and different laws, see
whether it will not follow that temperance[937] also is a thing of
comparison, and courage as well, and prudence, and the other virtues,
than which nothing could be more absurd! What we have said, however, is
sufficient for the more general and simple class of answers to the
allegations of Celsus. But as we think it likely that some of those who
are accustomed to deeper investigation will fall in with this treatise,
let us venture to lay down some considerations of a profounder kind,
conveying a mystical and secret view respecting the original
distribution of the various quarters of the earth among different
superintending spirits; and let us prove to the best of our ability,
that our doctrine is free from the absurd consequences enumerated above.
Footnote 936:
καταθοινᾶται.
Footnote 937:
σωφροσύνη.
Chapter XXIX.
It appears to me, indeed, that Celsus has misunderstood some of the
deeper reasons relating to the arrangement of terrestrial affairs, some
of which are touched upon[938] even in Grecian history, when certain of
those who are considered to be gods are introduced as having contended
with each other about the possession of Attica; while in the writings of
the Greek poets also, some who are called gods are represented as
acknowledging that certain places here are preferred by them[939] before
others. The history of barbarian nations, moreover, and especially that
of Egypt, contains some such allusions to the division of the so-called
Egyptian nomes, when it states that Athena, who obtained Saïs by lot, is
the same who also has possession of Attica. And the learned among the
Egyptians can enumerate innumerable instances of this kind, although I
do not know whether they include the Jews and their country in this
division. And now, so far as testimonies outside the word of God bearing
on this point are concerned, enough have been adduced for the present.
We say, moreover, that our prophet of God and His genuine servant Moses,
in his song in the book of Deuteronomy, makes a statement regarding the
portioning out of the earth in the following terms: “When the Most High
divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the
bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of God; and
the Lord’s portion was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His
inheritance.”[940] And regarding the distribution of the nations, the
same Moses, in his work entitled Genesis, thus expresses himself in the
style of a historical narrative: “And the whole earth was of one
language and of one speech; and it came to pass, as they journeyed from
the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt
there.”[941] A little further on he continues: “And the Lord came down
to see the city and the tower, which the children of men had built. And
the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
language; and this they have begun to do: and now nothing will be
restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go
down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand
one another’s speech. And the Lord scattered them abroad from thence
upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and
the tower. Therefore is the name of it called Confusion;[942] because
the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from
thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the
earth.”[943] In the treatise of Solomon, moreover, on “Wisdom,” and on
the events at the time of the confusion of languages, when the division
of the earth took place, we find the following regarding Wisdom:
“Moreover, the nations. in their wicked conspiracy being confounded, she
found out the righteous, and preserved him blameless unto God, and kept
him strong in his tender compassion towards his son.”[944] But on these
subjects much, and that of a mystical kind, might be said; in keeping
with which is the following: “It is good to keep close the secret of a
king,”[945]—in order that the doctrine of the entrance of souls into
bodies (not, however, that of the transmigration from one body into
another) may not be thrown before the common understanding, nor what is
holy given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine. For such a
procedure would be impious, being equivalent to a betrayal of the
mysterious declarations of God’s wisdom, of which it has been well said:
“Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in a body
subject to sin.”[946] It is sufficient, however, to represent in the
style of a historic narrative what is intended to convey a secret
meaning in the garb of history, that those who have the capacity may
work out for themselves all that relates to the subject.
Footnote 938:
ἐφάπτεται.
Footnote 939:
οἰκειοτέρους.
Footnote 940:
Cf. Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 (LXX.).
Footnote 941:
Cf. Gen. xi. 1, 2.
Footnote 942:
σύγχυσις.
Footnote 943:
Cf. Gen. xi. 5-9.
Footnote 944:
Cf. Wisd. of Sol. x. 5.
Footnote 945:
Cf. Tobit xii. 7.
Footnote 946:
Cf. Wisd. of Sol. i. 4.
Chapter XXX.
[The narrative, then, may be understood as follows.] All the people upon
the earth are to be regarded as having used one divine language, and so
long as they lived harmoniously together were preserved in the use of
this divine language, and they remained without moving from the east so
long as they were imbued with the sentiments of the “light,” and of the
“reflection” of the eternal light.[947] But when they departed from the
east, and began to entertain sentiments alien to those of the east,[948]
they found a place in the land of Shinar (which, when interpreted, means
“gnashing of teeth,” by way of indicating symbolically that they had
lost the means of their support), and in it they took up their abode.
Then, desiring to gather together material things,[949] and to join to
heaven what had no natural affinity for it, that by means of material
things they might conspire against such as were immaterial, they said,
“Come, let us make bricks, and burn them with fire.” Accordingly, when
they had hardened and compacted these materials of clay and matter, and
had shown their desire to make brick into stone, and clay into bitumen,
and by these means to build a city and a tower, the head of which was,
at least in their conception, to reach up to the heavens, after the
manner of the “high things which exalt themselves against the knowledge
of God,” each one was handed over (in proportion to the greater or less
departure from the east which had taken place among them, and in
proportion to the extent in which bricks had been converted into stones,
and clay into bitumen, and building carried on out of these materials)
to angels of character more or less severe, and of a nature more or less
stern, until they had paid the penalty of their daring deeds; and they
were conducted by those angels, who imprinted on each his native
language, to the different parts of the earth according to their
deserts: some, for example, to a region of burning heat, others to a
country which chastises its inhabitants by its cold; others, again, to a
land exceedingly difficult of cultivation, others to one less so in
degree; while a fifth were brought into a land filled with wild beasts,
and a sixth to a country comparatively free of these.
Footnote 947:
ἐς ὅσον εἰσὶ τὰ τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τοῦ ἀπὸ φωτὸς ἀϊδίου ἀπαυγάσματος
φρονοῦντες.
Footnote 948:
ἀλλότρια ἀνατολῶν φρονοῦντες.
Footnote 949:
τὰ τῆς ὕλης.
Chapter XXXI.
Now, in the next place, if any one has the capacity, let him understand
that in what assumes the form of history, and which contains some things
that are literally true, while yet it conveys a deeper meaning, those
who preserved their original language continued, by reason of their not
having migrated from the east, in possession of the east, and of their
eastern language. And let him notice, that these alone became the
portion of the Lord, and His people who were called Jacob, and Israel
the cord of His inheritance; and these alone were governed by a ruler
who did not receive those who were placed under him for the purpose of
punishment, as was the case with the others. Let him also, who has the
capacity to perceive as far as mortals may, observe that in the body
politic[950] of those who were assigned to the Lord as His pre-eminent
portion, sins were committed, first of all, such as might be forgiven,
and of such a nature as not to make the sinner worthy of entire
desertion, while subsequently they became more numerous, though still of
a nature to be pardoned. And while remarking that this state of matters
continued for a considerable time, and that a remedy was always applied,
and that after certain intervals these persons returned to their duty,
let him notice that they were given over, in proportion to their
transgressions, to those to whom had been assigned the other quarters of
the earth; and that, after being at first slightly punished, and having
made atonement,[951] they returned, as if they had undergone
discipline,[952] to their proper habitations. Let him notice also that
afterwards they were delivered over to rulers of a severer character—to
Assyrians and Babylonians, as the Scriptures would call them. In the
next place, notwithstanding that means of healing were being applied,
let him observe that they were still multiplying their transgressions,
and that they were on that account dispersed into other regions by the
rulers of the nations that oppressed them. And their own ruler
intentionally overlooked their oppression at the hands of the rulers of
the other nations, in order that he also with good reason, as avenging
himself, having obtained power to tear away from the other nations as
many as he can, may do so, and enact for them laws, and point out a
manner of life agreeably to which they ought to live, that so he may
conduct them to the end to which those of the former people were
conducted who did not commit sin.
Footnote 950:
πολιτείᾳ.
Footnote 951:
καὶ τίσαντας δίκην.
Footnote 952:
ὡσπερεὶ παιδευθέντας.
Chapter XXXII.
And by this means let those who have the capacity of comprehending
truths so profound, learn that he to whom were allotted those who had
not formerly sinned is far more powerful than the others, since he has
been able to make a selection of individuals from the portion of the
whole,[953] and to separate them from those who received them for the
purpose of punishment, and to bring them under the influence of laws,
and of a mode of life which helps to produce an oblivion of their former
transgressions. But, as we have previously observed, these remarks are
to be understood as being made by us with a concealed meaning, by way of
pointing out the mistakes of those who asserted that “the various
quarters of the earth were from the beginning distributed among
different superintending spirits, and being allotted among certain
governing powers, were administered in this way;” from which statement
Celsus took occasion to make the remarks referred to. But since those
who wandered away from the east were delivered over, on account of their
sins, to “a reprobate mind,” and to “vile affections,” and to
“uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,”[954] in order that,
being sated with sin, they might hate it, we shall refuse our assent to
the assertion of Celsus, that “because of the superintending spirits
distributed among the different parts of the earth, what is done among
each nation is rightly done;” for our desire is to do what is _not_
agreeable to these spirits.[955] For we see that it is a religious act
to do away with the customs originally established in the various places
by means of laws of a better and more divine character, which were
enacted by Jesus, as one possessed of the greatest power, who has
rescued us “from the present evil world,” and “from the princes of the
world that come to nought;” and that it is a mark of irreligion not to
throw ourselves at the feet of Him who has manifested Himself to be
holier and more powerful than all other rulers, and to whom God said, as
the prophets many generations before predicted: “Ask of me, and I shall
give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of
the earth for Thy possession.”[956] For He, too, has become the
“expectation” of us who from among the heathen have believed upon Him,
and upon His Father, who is God over all things.
Footnote 953:
ἀπὸ τῆς πάντων μερίδος.
Footnote 954:
Cf. Rom. i. 24, 26, 28.
Footnote 955:
ἀλλὰ καὶ βουλόμεθα, οὐχ ὅπη ᾖ ἐκείνοις φίλον, ποιεῖν τὰ ἐκείνων.
Footnote 956:
Ps. ii. 8.
Chapter XXXIII.
The remarks which we have made not only answer the statements of Celsus
regarding the superintending spirits, but anticipate in some measure
what he afterwards brings forward, when he says: “Let the second party
come forward; and I shall ask them whence they come, and whom they
regard as the originator of their ancestral customs. They will reply, No
one, because they spring from the same source as the Jews themselves,
and derive their instruction and superintendence[957] from no other
quarter, and notwithstanding they have revolted from the Jews.” Each one
of us, then, is come “in the last days,” when one Jesus has visited us,
to the “visible mountain of the Lord,” the Word that is above every
word, and to the “house of God,” which is “the church of the living God,
the pillar and ground of the truth.”[958] And we notice how it is built
upon “the tops of the mountains,” _i.e._ the predictions of all the
prophets, which are its foundations. And this house is exalted above the
hills, _i.e._ those individuals among men who make a profession of
superior attainments in wisdom and truth; and all the nations come to
it, and the “many nations” go forth, and say to one another, turning to
the religion which in the last days has shone forth through Jesus
Christ: “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the
house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will
walk in them.”[959] For the law came forth from the dwellers in Sion,
and settled among us as a spiritual law. Moreover, the word of the Lord
came forth from that very Jerusalem, that it might be disseminated
through all places, and might judge in the midst of the heathen,
selecting those whom it sees to be submissive, and rejecting[960] the
disobedient, who are many in number. And to those who inquire of us
whence we come, or who is our founder,[961] we reply that we are come,
agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to “cut down our hostile and
insolent ‘wordy’[962] swords into ploughshares, and to convert into
pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war.”[963] For we no
longer take up “sword against nation,” nor do we “learn war any more,”
having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our
leader, instead of those whom our fathers followed, among whom we were
“strangers to the covenant,” and having received a law, for which we
give thanks to Him that rescued us from the error [of our ways], saying,
“Our fathers honoured lying idols, and there is not among them one that
causeth it to rain.”[964] Our Superintendent, then, and Teacher, having
come forth from the Jews, regulates the whole world by the word of His
teaching. And having made these remarks by way of anticipation, we have
refuted as well as we could the untrue statements of Celsus, by
subjoining the appropriate answer.
Footnote 957:
χοροστάτην.
Footnote 958:
Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15.
Footnote 959:
Cf. Isa. ii. 3.
Footnote 960:
ἐλένχῃ.
Footnote 961:
ἀρχηγέτην.
Footnote 962:
συγκόψαι τὰς πολεμικὰς ἡμῶν λογικὰς μαχαίρας καὶ ὑβριστικὰς εἰς
ἄροτρα, καὶ τὰς κατὰ τὸ πρότερον ἡμῶν μάχιμον ζιβύνας εἰς δρέπανα
μετασκευάζομεν.
Footnote 963:
Cf. Isa. ii. 4.
Footnote 964:
Cf. Jer. xvi. 19 and xiv. 22: ὡς ψευδῆ ἐκτήσαντο οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν
εἴδωλα, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς ὑετίζων.
Chapter XXXIV.
But, that we may not pass without notice what Celsus has said between
these and the preceding paragraphs, let us quote his words: “We might
adduce Herodotus as a witness on this point, for he expresses himself as
follows: ‘For the people of the cities Marea and Apis, who inhabit those
parts of Egypt that are adjacent to Libya, and who look upon themselves
as Libyans, and not as Egyptians, finding their sacrificial worship
oppressive, and wishing not to be excluded from the use of cows’ flesh,
sent to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, saying that there was no
relationship between them and the Egyptians, that they dwelt outside the
Delta, that there was no community of sentiment between them and the
Egyptians, and that they wished to be allowed to partake of all kinds of
food. But the god would not allow them to do as they desired, saying
that that country was a part of Egypt, which was watered by the
inundation of the Nile, and that those were Egyptians who dwell to the
south of the city of Elephantine, and drink of the river Nile.’[965]
Such is the narrative of Herodotus. But,” continues Celsus, “Ammon in
divine things would not make a worse ambassador than the angels of the
Jews,[966] so that there is nothing wrong in each nation observing its
established method of worship. Of a truth, we shall find very great
differences prevailing among the nations, and yet each seems to deem its
own by far the best. Those inhabitants of Ethiopia who dwell in Meroe
worship Jupiter and Bacchus alone; the Arabians, Urania and Bacchus
only; all the Egyptians, Osiris and Isis; the Saïtes, Minerva; while the
Naucratites have recently classed Serapis among their deities, and the
rest according to their respective laws. And some abstain from the flesh
of sheep, and others from that of crocodiles; others, again, from that
of cows, while they regard swine’s flesh with loathing. The Scythians,
indeed, regard it as a noble act to banquet upon human beings. Among the
Indians, too, there are some who deem themselves discharging a holy duty
in eating their fathers, and this is mentioned in a certain passage by
Herodotus. For the sake of credibility, I shall again quote his very
words, for he writes as follows: ‘For if any one were to make this
proposal to all men, viz. to bid him select out of all existing laws the
best, each would choose, after examination, those of his own country.
Men each consider their own laws much the best, and therefore it is not
likely that any other than a madman would make these things a subject of
ridicule. But that such are the conclusions of all men regarding the
laws, may be determined by many other evidences, and especially by the
following illustration. Darius, during his reign, having summoned before
him those Greeks who happened to be present at the time, inquired of
them for how much they would be willing to eat their deceased fathers;
their answer was, that for no consideration would they do such a thing.
After this, Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatians, who
are in the habit of eating their parents, and asked of them in the
presence of these Greeks, who learned what passed through an
interpreter, for what amount of money they would undertake to burn their
deceased fathers with fire; on which they raised a loud shout, and bade
the king say no more.’[967] Such is the way, then, in which these
matters are regarded. And Pindar appears to me to be right in saying
that ‘law’ is the king of all things.”[968]
Footnote 965:
Cf. Herodot. ii. 18.
Footnote 966:
ὁ δὲ Ἄμμων οὐδέν τι κακίων διαπρεσβεῦσαι τὰ δαιμόνια, ἢ οἱ Ἰουδαίων
ἄγγελοι.
Footnote 967:
εὐφημεῖν μὲν ἐκέλευον.
Footnote 968:
Cf. Herodot. iii. 38.
Chapter XXXV.
The argument of Celsus appears to point by these illustrations to this
conclusion: that it is “an obligation incumbent on all men to live
according to their country’s customs, in which case they will escape
censure; whereas the Christians, who have abandoned their native usages,
and who are not one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for giving
their adherence to the teaching of Jesus.” Let him then tell us whether
it is a becoming thing for philosophers, and those who have been taught
not to yield to superstition, to abandon their country’s customs, so as
to eat of those articles of food which are prohibited in their
respective cities? or whether this proceeding of theirs is opposed to
what is becoming? For if, on account of their philosophy, and the
instructions which they have received against superstition, they should
eat, in disregard of their native laws, what was interdicted by their
fathers, why should the Christians (since the gospel requires _them_ not
to busy themselves about statues and images, or even about any of the
created works of God, but to ascend on high, and present the soul to the
Creator), when acting in a similar manner to the philosophers, be
censured for so doing? But if, for the sake of defending the theses
which he has proposed to himself, Celsus, or those who think with him,
should say, that even one who had studied philosophy would keep his
country’s laws, then philosophers in Egypt, for example, would act most
ridiculously in avoiding the eating of onions, in order to observe their
country’s laws, or certain parts of the body, as the head and shoulders,
in order not to transgress the traditions of their fathers. And I do not
speak of those Egyptians who shudder with fear at the discharge of wind
from the body, because if any one of these were to become a philosopher,
and still observe the laws of his country, he would be a ridiculous
philosopher, acting very unphilosophically.[969] In the same way, then,
he who has been led by the gospel to worship the God of all things, and,
from regard to his country’s laws, lingers here below among images and
statues of men, and does not desire to ascend to the Creator, will
resemble those who have indeed learned philosophy, but who are afraid of
things which ought to inspire no terrors, and who regard it as an act of
impiety to eat of those things which have been enumerated.
Footnote 969:
γέλοιος ἂν εἴη φιλόσοφος ἀφιλόσοφα πράττων.
Chapter XXXVI.
But what sort of being is this Ammon of Herodotus, whose words Celsus
has quoted, as if by way of demonstrating how each one ought to keep his
country’s laws? For this Ammon would not allow the people of the cities
of Marea and Apis, who inhabit the districts adjacent to Libya, to treat
as a matter of indifference the use of cows’ flesh, which is a thing not
only indifferent in its own nature, but which does not prevent a man
from being noble and virtuous. If Ammon, then, forbade the use of cows’
flesh, because of the advantage which results from the use of the animal
in the cultivation of the ground, and in addition to this, because it is
by the female that the breed is increased, the account would possess
more plausibility. But now he simply requires that those who drink of
the Nile should observe the laws of the Egyptians regarding kine. And
hereupon Celsus, taking occasion to pass a jest upon the employment of
the angels among the Jews as the ambassadors of God, says that “Ammon
did not make a worse ambassador of divine things than did the angels of
the Jews,” into the meaning of whose words and manifestations he
instituted no investigation; otherwise he would have seen, that it is
not for oxen that God is concerned, even where He may appear to
legislate for them, or for irrational animals, but that what is written
for the sake of men, under the appearance of relating to irrational
animals, contains certain truths of nature.[970] Celsus, moreover, says
that no wrong is committed by any one who wishes to observe the
religious worship sanctioned by the laws of his country; and it follows,
according to his view, that the Scythians commit no wrong, when, in
conformity with their country’s laws, they eat human beings. And those
Indians who eat their own fathers are considered, according to Celsus,
to do a religious, or at least not a wicked act. He adduces, indeed, a
statement of Herodotus which favours the principle that each one ought,
from a sense of what is becoming, to obey his country’s laws; and he
appears to approve of the custom of those Indians called Callatians, who
in the time of Darius devoured their parents, since, on Darius inquiring
for how great a sum of money they would be willing to lay aside this
usage, they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no more.
Footnote 970:
φυσιολογίαν.
Chapter XXXVII.
As there are, then, generally two laws presented to us, the one being
the law of nature, of which God would be the legislator, and the other
being the written law of cities, it is a proper thing, when the written
law is not opposed to that of God, for the citizens not to abandon it
under pretext of foreign customs; but when the law of nature, that is,
the law of God, commands what is opposed to the written law, observe
whether reason will not tell us to bid a long farewell to the written
code, and to the desire of its legislators, and to give ourselves up to
the legislator God, and to choose a life agreeable to His word, although
in doing so it may be necessary to encounter dangers, and countless
labours, and even death and dishonour. For when there are some laws in
harmony with the will of God, which are opposed to others which are in
force in cities, and when it is impracticable to please God (and those
who administer laws of the kind referred to), it would be absurd to
contemn those acts by means of which we may please the Creator of all
things, and to select those by which we shall become displeasing to God,
though we may satisfy unholy laws, and those who love them. But since it
is reasonable in other matters to prefer the law of nature, which is the
law of God, before the written law, which has been enacted by men in a
spirit of opposition to the law of God, why should we not do this still
more in the case of those laws which relate to God? Neither shall we,
like the Ethiopians who inhabit the parts about Meroe, worship, as is
their pleasure, Jupiter and Bacchus only; nor shall we at all reverence
Ethiopian gods in the Ethiopian manner; nor, like the Arabians, shall we
regard Urania and Bacchus alone as divinities; nor in any degree at all
deities in which the difference of sex has been a ground of distinction
(as among the Arabians, who worship Urania as a female, and Bacchus as a
male deity); nor shall we, like all the Egyptians, regard Osiris and
Isis as gods; nor shall we enumerate Athena among these, as the Saïtes
are pleased to do. And if to the ancient inhabitants of Naucratis it
seemed good to worship other divinities, while their modern descendants
have begun quite recently to pay reverence to Serapis, who never was a
god at all, we shall not on that account assert that a new being who was
not formerly a god, nor at all known to men, is a deity. For the Son of
God, “the First-born of all creation,” although He seemed recently to
have become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For
the Holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of
creation;[971] for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of
man, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”[972]
Footnote 971:
πρεσβύτατον πάντων τῶν δημιουργημάτων.
Footnote 972:
Cf. Gen. i. 26.
Chapter XXXVIII.
I wish, however, to show how Celsus asserts without any good reason,
that each one reveres his domestic and native institutions. For he
declares that “those Ethiopians who inhabit Meroe know only of two gods,
Jupiter and Bacchus, and worship these alone; and that the Arabians also
know only of two, viz. Bacchus, who is also an Ethiopian deity, and
Urania, whose worship is confined to them.” According to his account,
neither do the Ethiopians worship Urania, nor the Arabians Jupiter. If,
then, an Ethiopian were from any accident to fall into the hands of the
Arabians, and were to be judged guilty of impiety because he did not
worship Urania, and for this reason should incur the danger of death,
would it be proper for the Ethiopian to die, or to act contrary to his
country’s laws, and do obeisance to Urania? Now, if it would be proper
for him to act contrary to the laws of his country, he will do what is
not right, so far as the language of Celsus is any standard; while, if
he should be led away to death, let him show the reasonableness of
selecting such a fate. I know not whether, if the Ethiopian doctrine
taught men to philosophize on the immortality of the soul, and the
honour which is paid to religion, they would reverence those as deities
who are deemed to be such by the laws of the country.[973] A similar
illustration may be employed in the case of the Arabians, if from any
accident they happened to visit the Ethiopians about Meroe. For, having
been taught to worship Urania and Bacchus alone, they will not worship
Jupiter along with the Ethiopians; and if, adjudged guilty of impiety,
they should be led away to death, let Celsus tell us what it would be
reasonable on their part to do. And with regard to the fables which
relate to Osiris and Isis, it is superfluous and out of place at present
to enumerate them. For although an allegorical meaning may be given to
the fables, they will nevertheless teach us to offer divine worship to
cold water, and to the earth, which is subject to men, and all the
animal creation. For in this way, I presume, they refer Osiris to water,
and Isis to earth; while with regard to Serapis the accounts are
numerous and conflicting, to the effect that very recently he appeared
in public, agreeably to certain juggling tricks performed at the desire
of Ptolemy, who wished to show to the people of Alexandria as it were a
visible god. And we have read in the writings of Numenius the
Pythagorean regarding his formation, that he partakes of the essence of
all the animals and plants that are under the control of nature, that he
may appear to have been fashioned into a god, not by the makers of
images alone, with the aid of profane mysteries, and juggling tricks
employed to invoke demons, but also by magicians and sorcerers, and
those demons who are bewitched by their incantations.[974]
Footnote 973:
This sentence is regarded by Guietus as an interpolation, which should
be struck out of the text.
Footnote 974:
ἵνα δόξῃ μετὰ τῶν ἀτελέστων τελετῶν, καὶ τῶν καλουσῶν δαίμονας
μαγγανειῶν, οὐχ ὑπὸ ἀγαλματοποιῶν μόνων κατασκευάζεσθαι θεὸς, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ὑπὸ μάγων, καὶ φαρμακῶν, καὶ τῶν ἐπῳδαῖς αὐτῶν κηλουμένων δαιμόνων.
Chapter XXXIX.
We must therefore inquire what may be fittingly eaten or not by the
rational and gentle[975] animal, which acts always in conformity with
reason; and not worship at random, sheep, or goats, or kine; to abstain
from which is an act of moderation,[976] for much advantage is derived
by men from these animals. Whereas, is it not the most foolish of all
things to spare crocodiles, and to treat _them_ as sacred to some
fabulous divinity or other? For it is a mark of exceeding stupidity to
spare those animals which do not spare us, and to bestow care on those
which make a prey of human beings. But Celsus approves of those who, in
keeping with the laws of their country, worship and tend crocodiles, and
not a word does he say against them, while the Christians appear
deserving of censure, who have been taught to loath evil, and to turn
away from wicked works, and to reverence and honour virtue as being
generated by God, and as being His Son. For we must not, on account of
their feminine name and nature, regard wisdom and righteousness as
females;[977] for these things are in our view the Son of God, as His
genuine disciple has shown, when he said of Him, “Who of God is made to
us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.”[978]
And although we may call Him a “second” God, let men know that by the
term “second God” we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of
including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all
reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen
naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which “reason,”
we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree
far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to
receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute
wisdom, and the absolute righteousness.
Footnote 975:
ἡμέρῳ.
Footnote 976:
μέτριον.
Footnote 977:
οὐ γὰρ παρὰ τὸ θηλυκὸν ὄνομα, καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ θήλειαν νομιστέον εἶναι τὴν
σοφίαν, καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην.
Footnote 978:
Cf. 1 Cor. i. 30.
Chapter XL.
But since, after Celsus had spoken to the above effect of the different
kinds of laws, he adds the following remark, “Pindar appears to me to be
correct in saying that law is king of all things,” let us proceed to
discuss this assertion. What law do you mean to say, good sir, is “king
of all things?” If you mean those which exist in the various cities,
then such an assertion is not true. For all men are not governed by the
same law. You ought to have said that “laws are kings of all men,” for
in every nation some law is king of all. But if you mean that which is
law in the proper sense, then it is this which is by nature “king of all
things;” although there are some individuals who, having like robbers
abandoned the law, deny its validity, and live lives of violence and
injustice. We Christians, then, who have come to the knowledge of the
law which is by nature “king of all things,” and which is the same with
the law of God, endeavour to regulate our lives by its prescriptions,
having bidden a long farewell to those of an unholy kind.
Chapter XLI.
Let us notice the charges which are next advanced by Celsus, in which
there is exceedingly little that has reference to the Christians, as
most of them refer to the Jews. His words are: “If, then, in these
respects the Jews were carefully to preserve their own law, they are not
to be blamed for so doing, but those persons rather who have forsaken
their own usages, and adopted those of the Jews. And if they pride
themselves on it, as being possessed of superior wisdom, and keep aloof
from intercourse with others, as not being equally pure with themselves,
they have already heard that their doctrine concerning heaven is not
peculiar to them, but, to pass by all others, is one which has long ago
been received by the Persians, as Herodotus somewhere mentions. ‘For
they have a custom,’ he says, ‘of going up to the tops of the mountains,
and of offering sacrifices to Jupiter, giving the name of Jupiter to the
whole circle of the heavens.’[979] And I think,” continues Celsus, “that
it makes no difference whether you call the highest being Zeus, or Zen,
or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun like the Egyptians, or Pappæus like the
Scythians. Nor would they be deemed at all holier than others in this
respect, that they observe the rite of circumcision, for this was done
by the Egyptians and Colchians before them; nor because they abstain
from swine’s flesh, for the Egyptians practised abstinence not only from
it, but from the flesh of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fishes as
well; while Pythagoras and his disciples do not eat beans, nor anything
that contains life. It is not probable, however, that they enjoy God’s
favour, or are loved by Him differently from others, or that angels were
sent from heaven to them alone, as if they had had allotted to them
‘some region of the blessed,’[980] for we see both themselves and the
country of which they were deemed worthy. Let this band,[981] then, take
its departure, after paying the penalty of its vaunting, not having a
knowledge of the great God, but being led away and deceived by the
artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good end.”
Footnote 979:
Cf. Herodot. i. 135.
Footnote 980:
οἷον δή τινα μακάρων χώραν λαχοῦσιν.
Footnote 981:
χορός.
Chapter XLII.
It is evident that, by the preceding remarks, Celsus charges the Jews
with falsely giving themselves out as the chosen portion of the Supreme
God above all other nations. And he accuses them of boasting, because
they gave out that they knew the great God, although they did not really
know Him, but were led away by the artifices of Moses, and were deceived
by him, and became his disciples to no good end. Now we have in the
preceding pages already spoken in part of the venerable and
distinguished polity of the Jews, when it existed amongst them as a
symbol of the city of God, and of His temple, and of the sacrificial
worship offered in it and at the altar of sacrifice. But if any one were
to turn his attention to the meaning of the legislator, and to the
constitution which he established, and were to examine the various
points relating to him, and compare them with the present method of
worship among other nations, there are none which he would admire to a
greater degree; because, so far as can be accomplished among mortals,
everything that was not of advantage to the human race was withheld from
them, and only those things which are useful bestowed. And for this
reason they had neither gymnastic contests, nor scenic representations,
nor horse-races; nor were there among them women who sold their beauty
to any one who wished to have sexual intercourse without offspring, and
to cast contempt upon the nature of human generation. And what an
advantage was it to be taught from their tender years to ascend above
all visible nature, and to hold the belief that God was not fixed
anywhere within its limits, but to look for Him on high, and beyond the
sphere of all bodily substance![982] And how great was the advantage
which they enjoyed in being instructed almost from their birth, and as
soon as they could speak,[983] in the immortality of the soul, and in
the existence of courts of justice under the earth, and in the rewards
provided for those who have lived righteous lives! These truths, indeed,
were proclaimed in the veil of fable to children, and to those whose
views of things were childish; while to those who were already occupied
in investigating the truth, and desirous of making progress therein,
these fables, so to speak, were transfigured into the truths which were
concealed within them. And I consider that it was in a manner worthy of
their name as the “portion of God” that they despised all kinds of
divination, as that which bewitches men to no purpose, and which
proceeds rather from wicked demons than from anything of a better
nature; and sought the knowledge of future events in the souls of those
who, owing to their high degree of purity, received the spirit of the
Supreme God.
Footnote 982:
ὑπὲρ τὰ σώματα.
Footnote 983:
συμπληρώσει τοῦ λόγου.
Chapter XLIII.
But what need is there to point out how agreeable to sound reason, and
unattended with injury either to master or slave, was the law that one
of the same faith[984] should not be allowed to continue in slavery more
than six years?[985] The Jews, then, cannot be said to preserve their
own law in the same points with the other nations. For it would be
censurable in them, and would involve a charge of insensibility to the
superiority of their law, if they were to believe that they had been
legislated for in the same way as the other nations among the heathen.
And although Celsus will not admit it, the Jews nevertheless _are_
possessed of a wisdom superior not only to that of the multitude, but
also of those who have the appearance of philosophers; because those who
engage in philosophical pursuits, after the utterance of the most
venerable philosophical sentiments, fall away into the worship of idols
and demons, whereas the very lowest Jew directs his look to the Supreme
God alone; and they do well, indeed, so far as this point is concerned,
to pride themselves thereon, and to keep aloof from the society of
others as accursed and impious. And would that they had not sinned, and
transgressed the law, and slain the prophets in former times, and in
these latter days conspired against Jesus, that we might be in
possession of a pattern of a heavenly city which even Plato would have
sought to describe; although I doubt whether he could have accomplished
as much as was done by Moses and those who followed him, who nourished a
“chosen generation,” and “a holy nation,” dedicated to God, with words
free from all superstition.
Footnote 984:
τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ὁρώμενον δογμάτων.
Footnote 985:
Cf. Ex. xxi. 2 and Jer. xxxiv. 14.
Chapter XLIV.
But as Celsus would compare the venerable customs of the Jews with the
laws of certain nations, let us proceed to look at them. He is of
opinion, accordingly, that there is no difference between the doctrine
regarding “heaven” and that regarding “God;” and he says that “the
Persians, like the Jews, offer sacrifices to Jupiter upon the tops of
the mountains,”—not observing that, as the Jews were acquainted with one
God, so they had only one holy house of prayer, and one altar of whole
burnt-offerings, and one censer for incense, and one high priest of God.
The Jews, then, had nothing in common with the Persians, who ascend the
summits of their mountains, which are many in number, and offer up
sacrifices which have nothing in common with those which are regulated
by the Mosaic code,—in conformity to which the Jewish priests “served
unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” explaining
enigmatically the object of the law regarding the sacrifices, and the
things of which these sacrifices were the symbols. The Persians
therefore may call the “whole circle of heaven” Jupiter; but we maintain
that “the heaven” is neither Jupiter nor God, as we indeed know that
certain beings of a class inferior to God have ascended above the
heavens and all visible nature: and in this sense we understand the
words, “Praise God, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters that be above
the heavens; let them praise the name of the Lord.”[986]
Footnote 986:
Cf. Ps. cxlviii. 4, 5.
Chapter XLV.
As Celsus, however, is of opinion that it matters nothing whether the
highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or
Ammoun (as the Egyptians term him), or Pappæus (as the Scythians entitle
him), let us discuss the point for a little, reminding the reader at the
same time of what has been said above upon this question, when the
language of Celsus led us to consider the subject. And now we maintain
that the nature of names is not, as Aristotle supposes, an enactment of
those who impose them.[987] For the languages which are prevalent among
men do not derive their origin from men, as is evident to those who are
able to ascertain the nature of the charms which are appropriated by the
inventors of the languages differently, according to the various
tongues, and to the varying pronunciations of the names, on which we
have spoken briefly in the preceding pages, remarking that when those
names which in a certain language were possessed of a natural power were
translated into another, they were no longer able to accomplish what
they did before when uttered in their native tongues. And the same
peculiarity is found to apply to men; for if we were to translate the
name of one who was called from his birth by a certain appellation in
the Greek language into the Egyptian or Roman, or any other tongue, we
could not make him do or suffer the same things which he would have done
or suffered under the appellation first bestowed upon him. Nay, even if
we translated into the Greek language the name of an individual who had
been originally invoked in the Roman tongue, we could not produce the
result which the incantation professed itself capable of accomplishing
had it preserved the name first conferred upon him. And if these
statements are true when spoken of the names of _men_, what are we to
think of those which are transferred, for any cause whatever, to the
_Deity_? For example, something is transferred[988] from the name
Abraham when translated into Greek, and something is signified by that
of Isaac, and also by that of Jacob; and accordingly, if any one, either
in an invocation or in swearing an oath, were to use the expression,
“the God of Abraham,” and “the God of Isaac,” and “the God of Jacob,” he
would produce certain effects, either owing to the nature of these names
or to their powers, since even demons are vanquished and become
submissive to him who pronounces these names; whereas if we say, “the
god of the chosen father of the echo, and the god of laughter, and the
god of him who strikes with the heel,”[989] the mention of the name is
attended with no result, as is the case with other names possessed of no
power. And in the same way, if we translate the word “Israel” into Greek
or any other language, we shall produce no result; but if we retain it
as it is, and join it to those expressions to which such as are skilled
in these matters think it ought to be united, there would then follow
some result from the pronunciation of the word which would accord with
the professions of those who employ such invocations. And we may say the
same also of the pronunciation of “Sabaoth,” a word which is frequently
employed in incantations; for if we translate the term into “Lord of
hosts,” or “Lord of armies,” or “Almighty” (different acceptations of it
having been proposed by the interpreters), we shall accomplish nothing;
whereas if we retain the original pronunciation, we shall, as those who
are skilled in such matters maintain, produce some effect. And the same
observation holds good of Adonai. If, then, neither “Sabaoth” nor
“Adonai,” when rendered into what appears to be their meaning in the
Greek tongue, can accomplish anything, how much less would be the result
among those who regard it as a matter of indifference whether the
highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!
Footnote 987:
ὅτι ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων φύσις οὐ θεμένων εἰσὶ νόμοι.
Footnote 988:
μεταλαμβάνεται γάρ τι, φερ’ εἰπεῖν. In the editions of Hœschel and
Spencer, τι is wanting.
Footnote 989:
ὁ θεὸς πατρὸς ἐκλεκτοῦ τῆς ἠχοῦς, καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ γέλωτος, καὶ ὁ θεὸς
τοῦ πτερνιστοῦ. Cf. note in Benedictine ed.
Chapter XLVI.
It was for these and similar mysterious reasons, with which Moses and
the prophets were acquainted, that they forbade the name of other gods
to be pronounced by him who bethought himself of praying to the one
Supreme God alone, or to be remembered by a heart which had been taught
to be pure from all foolish thoughts and words. And for these reasons we
should prefer to endure all manner of suffering rather than acknowledge
Jupiter to be God. For we do not consider Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the
same, nor Jupiter to be at all divine, but that some demon, unfriendly
to men and to the true God, rejoices under this title.[990] And although
the Egyptians were to hold Ammon before us under threat of death, we
would rather die than address him as God, it being a name used in all
probability in certain Egyptian incantations in which this demon is
invoked. And although the Scythians may call Pappæus the supreme God,
yet we will not yield our assent to this; granting, indeed, that there
_is_ a Supreme Deity, although we do not give the name Pappæus to Him as
His proper title, but regard it as one which is agreeable to the demon
to whom was allotted the desert of Scythia, with its people and its
language. He, however, who gives God His title in the Scythian tongue,
or in the Egyptian or in any language in which he has been brought up,
will not be guilty of sin.
Footnote 990:
δαίμονα δέ τινα χαίρειν οὕτως ὀνομαζόμενον.
Chapter XLVII.
Now the reason why circumcision is practised among the Jews is not the
same as that which explains its existence among the Egyptians and
Colchians, and therefore it is not to be considered the same
circumcision. And as he who sacrifices does not sacrifice to the same
god, although he appears to perform the rite of sacrifice in a similar
manner, and he who offers up prayer does not pray to the same divinity,
although he asks the same things in his supplication; so, in the same
way, if one performs the rite of circumcision, it by no means follows
that it is not a different act from the circumcision performed upon
another. For the purpose, and the law, and the wish of him who performs
the rite, place the act in a different category. But that the whole
subject may be still better understood, we have to remark that the term
for “righteousness”[991] is the same among all the Greeks; but
righteousness is shown to be one thing according to the view of
Epicurus; and another according to the Stoics, who deny the threefold
division of the soul; and a different thing again according to the
followers of Plato, who hold that righteousness is the proper business
of the parts of the soul.[992] And so also the “courage”[993] of
Epicurus is one thing, who would undergo some labours in order to escape
from a greater number; and a different thing that of the philosopher of
the Porch, who would choose all virtue for its own sake; and a different
thing still that of Plato, who maintains that virtue itself is the act
of the irascible part of the soul, and who assigns to it a place about
the breast.[994] And so circumcision will be a different thing according
to the varying opinions of those who undergo it. But on such a subject
it is unnecessary to speak on this occasion in a treatise like the
present; for whoever desires to see what led us to the subject, can read
what we have said upon it in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.
Footnote 991:
δικαιοσύνη.
Footnote 992:
ἰδιοπραγίαν τῶν μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς.
Footnote 993:
ἀνδρεία.
Footnote 994:
τοῦ θυμικοῦ μέρους τῆς ψυχῆς φάσκοντος αὐτὸ εἶναι ἀρετὴν, καὶ
ἀποτάσσοντος αὐτῇ τόπον τὸν περὶ τὸν θωράκα.
Chapter XLVIII.
Although the Jews, then, pride themselves on circumcision, they will
separate it not only from that of the Colchians and Egyptians, but also
from that of the Arabian Ishmaelites; and yet the latter was derived
from their ancestor Abraham, the father of Ishmael, who underwent the
rite of circumcision along with his father. The Jews say that the
circumcision performed on the eighth day is the principal circumcision,
and that which is performed according to circumstances is different; and
probably it was performed on account of the hostility of some angel
towards the Jewish nation, who had the power to injure such of them as
were not circumcised, but was powerless against those who had undergone
the rite. This may be said to appear from what is written in the book of
Exodus, where the angel before the circumcision of Eliezer[995] was able
to work against[996] Moses, but could do nothing after his son was
circumcised. And when Zipporah had learned this, she took a pebble and
circumcised her child, and is recorded, according to the reading of the
common copies, to have said, “The blood of my child’s circumcision is
stayed,” but according to the Hebrew text, “A bloody husband art thou to
me.”[997] For she had known the story about a certain angel having power
before the shedding of the blood, but who became powerless through the
blood of circumcision. For which reason the words were addressed to
Moses, “A bloody husband art thou to me.” But these things, which appear
rather of a curious nature, and not level to the comprehension of the
multitude, I have ventured to treat at such length; and now I shall only
add, as becomes a Christian, one thing more, and shall then pass on to
what follows. For this angel might have had power, I think, over those
of the people who were not circumcised, and generally over all who
worshipped only the Creator; and this power lasted so long as Jesus had
not assumed a human body. But when He had done this, and had undergone
the rite of circumcision in His own person, all the power of the angel
over those who practise the same worship, but are not circumcised,[998]
was abolished; for Jesus reduced it to nought by [the power of] His
unspeakable divinity. And therefore His disciples are forbidden to
circumcise themselves, and are reminded [by the apostle]: “If ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”[999]
Footnote 995:
Cf. Ex. iv. 24, 25. Eliezer was one of the two sons of Moses. Cf. Ex.
xviii. 4.
Footnote 996:
ἐνεργεῖν κατὰ Μωϋσέως.
Footnote 997:
Cf. Ex. iv. 25, 26.
Footnote 998:
κατὰ τῶν ἐν τῇ θεοσεβείᾳ ταύτῃ περιτεμνομένων δύναμις. Boherellus
inserts μὴ before περιτεμνομένων, which has been adopted in the text.
Footnote 999:
Gal. v. 2.
Chapter XLIX.
But neither do the Jews pride themselves upon abstaining from swine’s
flesh, as if it were some great thing; but upon their having ascertained
the nature of clean and unclean animals, and the cause of the
distinction, and of swine being classed among the unclean. And these
distinctions were signs of certain things until the advent of Jesus;
after whose coming it was said to His disciple, who did not yet
comprehend the doctrine concerning these matters, but who said, “Nothing
that is common or unclean hath entered into my mouth,”[1000] “What God
hath cleansed, call not thou common.” It therefore in no way affects
either the Jews or us that the Egyptian priests abstain not only from
the flesh of swine, but also from that of goats, and sheep, and oxen,
and fish. But since it is not that “which entereth into the mouth that
defiles a man,” and since “meat does not commend us to God,” we do not
set great store on refraining from eating, nor yet are we induced to eat
from a gluttonous appetite. And therefore, so far as we are concerned,
the followers of Pythagoras, who abstain from all things that contain
life, may do as they please; only observe the different reason for
abstaining from things that have life on the part of the Pythagoreans
and our ascetics. For the former abstain on account of the fable about
the transmigration of souls, as the poet says:
“And some one, lifting up his beloved son,
Will slay him after prayer; O how foolish he!”[1001]
We, however, when we do abstain, do so because “we keep under our body,
and bring it into subjection,”[1002] and desire “to mortify our members
that are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection,
evil concupiscence;”[1003] and we use every effort to “mortify the deeds
of the flesh.”[1004]
Footnote 1000:
Cf. Acts x. 14.
Footnote 1001:
A quotation:
καί τις φίλον υἱὸν ἀείρας,
σφάξει ἐπευχόμενος μέγα νήπιος.
—A verse of Empedocles, quoted by Plutarch, _de Superstitione_, c.
xii. Spencer. Cf. note _in loc._ in Benedictine edition.
Footnote 1002:
Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 27.
Footnote 1003:
Cf. Col. iii. 5.
Footnote 1004:
Cf. Rom. viii. 13.
Chapter L.
Celsus, still expressing his opinion regarding the Jews, says: “It is
not probable that they are in great favour with God, or are regarded by
Him with more affection than others, or that angels are sent by Him to
them alone, as if to them had been allotted some region of the blessed.
For we may see both the people themselves, and the country of which they
were deemed worthy.” We shall refute this, by remarking that it is
evident that this nation _was_ in great favour with God, from the fact
that the God who presides over all things was called the God of the
Hebrews, even by those who were aliens to our faith. And because they
were in favour with God, they were not abandoned by Him;[1005] but
although few in number, they continued to enjoy the protection of the
divine power, so that in the reign of Alexander of Macedon they
sustained no injury from him, although they refused, on account of
certain covenants and oaths, to take up arms against Darius. They say
that on that occasion the Jewish high priest, clothed in his sacred
robe, received obeisance from Alexander, who declared that he had beheld
an individual arrayed in this fashion, who announced to him in his sleep
that he was to be the subjugator of the whole of Asia. Accordingly, we
Christians maintain that “it was the fortune of that people in a
remarkable degree to enjoy God’s favour, and to be loved by Him in a way
different from others;” but that this economy of things and this divine
favour were transferred to us, after Jesus had conveyed the power which
had been manifested among the Jews to those who had become converts to
Him from among the heathen. And for this reason, although the Romans
desired to perpetrate many atrocities against the Christians, in order
to ensure their extermination, they were unsuccessful; for there was a
divine hand which fought on their behalf, and whose desire it was that
the word of God should spread from one corner of the land of Judea
throughout the whole human race.
Footnote 1005:
καὶ ὡς εὐδοκιμοῦντες γε ὅσον οὐκ ἐγκατελείποντο. The negative particle
(οὐκ) is wanting in the editions of Hœschel and Spencer, but is found
in the Royal, Basil, and Vatican MSS. Guietus would delete ὅσον (which
emendation has been adopted in the translation), while Boherellus
would read ὅσοι instead.—RUÆUS.
Chapter LI.
But seeing that we have answered to the best of our ability the charges
brought by Celsus against the Jews and their doctrine, let us proceed to
consider what follows, and to prove that it is no empty boast on our
part when we make a profession of knowing the great God, and that we
have not been led away by any juggling tricks[1006] of Moses (as Celsus
imagines), or even of our own Saviour Jesus; but that for a good end we
listen to the God who speaks in Moses, and have accepted Jesus, whom he
testifies to be God, as the Son of God, in hope of receiving the best
rewards if we regulate our lives according to His word. And we shall
willingly pass over what we have already stated by way of anticipation
on the points, “whence we came, and who is our leader, and what law
proceeded from Him.” And if Celsus would maintain that there is no
difference between us and the Egyptians, who worship the goat, or the
ram, or the crocodile, or the ox, or the river-horse, or the dog-faced
baboon,[1007] or the cat, he can ascertain if it be so, and so may any
other who thinks alike on the subject. We, however, have to the best of
our ability defended ourselves at great length in the preceding pages on
the subject of the honour which we render to our Jesus, pointing out
that we have found the better part;[1008] and that in showing that the
truth which is contained in the teaching of Jesus Christ is pure and
unmixed with error, we are not commending ourselves, but our Teacher, to
whom testimony was borne through many witnesses by the Supreme God and
the prophetic writings among the Jews, and by the very clearness of the
case itself, for it is demonstrated that He could not have accomplished
such mighty works without the divine help.
Footnote 1006:
γοητείᾳ.
Footnote 1007:
τὸν κυνοκέφαλον.
Footnote 1008:
ὅτι κρεῖττον εὕρομεν.
Chapter LII.
But the statement of Celsus which we wish to examine at present is the
following: “Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced
against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really
an angel. But is he the first and only one who came [to men], or were
there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one,
they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves. For they
assert that on many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of them
together, and that these became wicked, and were cast under the earth
and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the warm
springs, which are their tears; and, moreover, that there came an angel
to the tomb of this said being—according to some, indeed, one, but
according to others, two—who answered the women that he had arisen. For
the Son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed
the help of another to roll away the stone. And again, on account of the
pregnancy of Mary, there came an angel to the carpenter, and once more
another angel, in order that they might take up the young child and flee
away [into Egypt]. But what need is there to particularize everything,
or to count up the number of angels said to have been sent to Moses, and
others amongst them? If, then, others were sent, it is manifest that he
also came from the same God. But he may be supposed to have the
appearance of announcing something of greater importance [than those who
preceded him], as if the Jews had been committing sin, or corrupting
their religion, or doing deeds of impiety; for these things are
obscurely hinted at.”
Chapter LIII.
The preceding remarks might suffice as an answer to the charges of
Celsus, so far as regards those points in which our Saviour Jesus Christ
is made the subject of special investigation. But that we may avoid the
appearance of intentionally passing over any portion of his work, as if
we were unable to meet him, let us, even at the risk of being
tautological (since we are challenged to this by Celsus), endeavour as
far as we can with all due brevity to continue our discourse, since
perhaps something either more precise or more novel may occur to us upon
the several topics. He says, indeed, that “he has omitted the
refutations which have been adduced against the claims which Christians
advance on behalf of their teacher,” although he has _not_ omitted
anything which he was able to bring forward, as is manifest from his
previous language, but makes this statement only as an empty rhetorical
device. That we are not refuted, however, on the subject of our great
Saviour, although the accuser may _appear_ to refute us, will be
manifest to those who peruse in a spirit of truth-loving investigation
all that is predicted and recorded of Him. And, in the next place, since
he considers that he makes a concession in saying of the Saviour, “Let
him appear to be really an angel,” we reply that we do not accept of
such a concession from Celsus; but we look to the work of Him who came
to visit the whole human race in His word and teaching, as each one of
His adherents was capable of receiving Him. And this was the work of one
who, as the prophecy regarding Him said, was not simply an angel, but
the “Angel of the great council:”[1009] for He announced to men the
great counsel of the God and Father of all things regarding them,
[saying] of those who yield themselves up to a life of pure religion,
that they ascend by means of their great deeds to God; but of those who
do not adhere to Him, that they place themselves at a distance from God,
and journey on to destruction through their unbelief of Him. He then
continues: “If even the angel came to men, is he the first and only one
who came, or did others come on former occasions?” And he thinks he can
meet either of these dilemmas at great length, although there is not a
single real Christian who asserts that Christ was the only being that
visited the human race. For, as Celsus says, “If they should say the
only one,” there are others who appeared to different individuals.
Footnote 1009:
Cf. Isa. ix. 6.
Chapter LIV.