following terms: “And so he is not the only one who is recorded to have
visited the human race, as even those who, under pretext of teaching in
the name of Jesus, have apostatized from the Creator as an inferior
being, and have given in their adherence to one who is a superior God
and father of him who visited [the world], assert that before him
certain beings came from the Creator to visit the human race.” Now, as
it is in the spirit of truth that we investigate all that relates to the
subject, we shall remark that it is asserted by Apelles, the celebrated
disciple of Marcion, who became the founder of a certain sect, and who
treated the writings of the Jews as fabulous, that Jesus is the only one
that came to visit the human race. Even against him, then, who
maintained that Jesus was the only one that came from God to men, it
would be in vain for Celsus to quote the statements regarding the
descent of other angels, seeing Apelles discredits, as we have already
mentioned, the miraculous narratives of the Jewish Scriptures; and much
more will he decline to admit what Celsus has adduced, from not
understanding the contents of the book of Enoch. No one, then, convicts
us of falsehood, or of making contradictory assertions, as if we
maintained both that our Saviour was the only being that ever came to
men, and yet that many others came on different occasions. And in a most
confused manner, moreover, does he adduce, when examining the subject of
the visits of angels to men, what he has derived, without seeing its
meaning, from the contents of the book of Enoch; for he does not appear
to have read the passages in question, nor to have been aware that the
books which bear the name of Enoch do not at all circulate in the
churches as divine, although it is from this source that he might be
supposed to have obtained the statement, that “sixty or seventy angels
descended at the same time, who fell into a state of wickedness.”
Chapter LV.
But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of candour what he has not
discovered in the contents of the book of Genesis, that “the sons of
God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to them
wives of all whom they chose,” we shall nevertheless even on this point
persuade those who are capable of understanding the meaning of the
prophet, that even before us there was one who referred this narrative
to the doctrine regarding souls, which became possessed with a desire
for the corporeal life of men, and this in metaphorical language, he
said, was termed “daughters of men.” But whatever may be the meaning of
the “sons of God desiring to possess the daughters of men,” it will not
at all contribute to prove that Jesus was not the only one who visited
mankind as an angel, and who manifestly became the Saviour and
benefactor of all those who depart from the flood of wickedness. Then,
mixing up and confusing whatever he had at any time heard, or had
anywhere found written—whether held to be of divine origin among
Christians or not—he adds: “The sixty or seventy who descended together
were cast under the earth, and were punished with chains.” And he quotes
(as from the book of Enoch, but without naming it) the following: “And
hence it is that the tears of these angels are warm springs,”—a thing
neither mentioned nor heard of in the churches of God! For no one was
ever so foolish as to materialize into human tears those which were shed
by the angels who had come down from heaven. And if it were right to
pass a jest upon what is advanced against us in a serious spirit by
Celsus, we might observe that no one would ever have said that hot
springs, the greater part of which are fresh water, were the tears of
the angels, since tears are saltish in their nature, unless indeed the
angels, in the opinion of Celsus, shed tears which are fresh.
Chapter LVI.
Proceeding immediately after to mix up and compare with one another
things that are dissimilar, and incapable of being united, he subjoins
to his statement regarding the sixty or seventy angels who came down
from heaven, and who, according to him, shed fountains of warm water for
tears, the following: “It is related also that there came to the tomb of
Jesus himself, according to some, two angels, according to others, one;”
having failed to notice, I think, that Matthew and Mark speak of one,
and Luke and John of two, which statements are not contradictory. For
they who mention “one,” say that it was he who rolled away the stone
from the sepulchre; while they who mention “two,” refer to those who
appeared in shining raiment to the women that repaired to the sepulchre,
or who were seen within sitting in white garments. Each of these
occurrences might now be demonstrated to have actually taken place, and
to be indicative of a figurative meaning existing in these “phenomena,”
[and intelligible] to those who were prepared to behold the resurrection
of the Word. Such a task, however, does not belong to our present
purpose, but rather to an exposition of the gospel.
Chapter LVII.
Now, that miraculous appearances have sometimes been witnessed by human
beings, is related by the Greeks; and not only by those of them who
might be suspected of composing fabulous narratives, but also by those
who have given every evidence of being genuine philosophers, and of
having related with perfect truth what had happened to them. Accounts of
this kind we have read in the writings of Chrysippus of Soli, and also
some things of the same kind relating to Pythagoras; as well as in some
of the more recent writers who lived a very short time ago, as in the
treatise of Plutarch of Chæronea “on the Soul,” and in the second book
of the work of Numenius the Pythagorean on the “Incorruptibility of the
Soul.” Now, when such accounts are related by the Greeks, and especially
by the philosophers among them, they are not to be received with mockery
and ridicule, nor to be regarded as fictions and fables; but when those
who are devoted to the God of all things, and who endure all kinds of
injury, even to death itself, rather than allow a falsehood to escape
their lips regarding God, announce the appearances of angels which they
have themselves witnessed, they are to be deemed unworthy of belief, and
their words are not to be regarded as true! Now it is opposed to sound
reason to judge in this way whether individuals are speaking truth or
falsehood. For those who act honestly, only after a long and careful
examination into the details of a subject, slowly and cautiously express
their opinion of the veracity or falsehood of this or that person with
regard to the marvels which they may relate; since it is the case that
neither do all men show themselves worthy of belief, nor do all make it
distinctly evident that they are relating to men only fictions and
fables. Moreover, regarding the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we
have this remark to make, that it is not at all wonderful if, on such an
occasion, either one or two angels should have appeared to announce that
Jesus had risen from the dead, and to provide for the safety of those
who believed in such an event to the advantage of their souls. Nor does
it appear to me at all unreasonable, that those who believe in the
resurrection of Jesus, and who manifest, as a fruit of their faith not
to be lightly esteemed, their possession of a virtuous[1010] life, and
their withdrawal from the flood of evils, should not be unattended by
angels who lend their help in accomplishing their conversion to God.
Footnote 1010:
τὸν ἐῤῥωμένον βίον.
Chapter LVIII.
But Celsus challenges the account also that an angel rolled away the
stone from the sepulchre where the body of Jesus lay, acting like a lad
at school, who should bring a charge against any one by help of a string
of commonplaces. And, as if he had discovered some clever objection to
the narrative, he remarks: “The Son of God, then, it appears, could not
open his tomb, but required the aid of another to roll away the stone.”
Now, not to overdo the discussion of this matter, or to have the
appearance of unreasonably introducing philosophical remarks, by
explaining the figurative meaning at present, I shall simply say of the
narrative alone, that it does appear in itself a more respectful
proceeding, that the servant and inferior should have rolled away the
stone, than that such an act should have been performed by Him whose
resurrection was to be for the advantage of mankind. I do not speak of
the desire of those who conspired against the Word, and who wished to
put Him to death, and to show to all men that He _was_ dead and
non-existent,[1011] that His tomb should not be opened, in order that no
one might behold the Word alive after their conspiracy; but the “Angel
of God” who came into the world for the salvation of men, with the help
of another angel, proved more powerful than the conspirators, and rolled
away the weighty stone, that those who deemed the Word to be dead might
be convinced that He is not with the “departed,” but is alive, and
precedes those who are willing to follow Him, that He may manifest to
them those truths which come after those which He formerly showed them
at the time of their first entrance [into the school of Christianity],
when they were as yet incapable of receiving deeper instruction. In the
next place, I do not understand what advantage he thinks will accrue to
his purpose when he ridicules the account of “the angel’s visit to
Joseph regarding the pregnancy of Mary;” and again, that of the angel to
warn the parents “to take up the new-born child, whose life was in
danger, and to flee with it into Egypt.” Concerning these matters,
however, we have in the preceding pages answered his statements. But
what does Celsus mean by saying, that “according to the Scriptures,
angels are recorded to have been sent to Moses, and others as well?” For
it appears to me to contribute nothing to his purpose, and especially
because none of them made any effort to accomplish, as far as in his
power, the conversion of the human race from their sins. Let it be
granted, however, that other angels were sent from God, but that he came
to announce something of greater importance [than any others who
preceded him]; and when the Jews had fallen into sin, and corrupted
their religion, and had done unholy deeds, transferred the kingdom of
God to other husbandmen, who in all the churches take special care of
themselves,[1012] and use every endeavour by means of a holy life, and
by a doctrine conformable thereto, to win over to the God of all things
those who would rush away from the teaching of Jesus.[1013]
Footnote 1011:
καὶ τὸ μηδὲν τυγχάνοντα.
Footnote 1012:
ἑαυτῶν. Guietus would read αὐτῶν, to agree with τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν.
Footnote 1013:
Instead of τὰς ἀπὸ τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀφορμάς, Boherellus
conjectures τοὺς ... ἀφορμῶντας, which has been adopted in the
translation.
Chapter LIX.
Celsus then continues: “The Jews accordingly, and these (clearly meaning
the Christians), have the same God;” and as if advancing a proposition
which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the following
assertion: “It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great
church[1014] admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the
creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz. concerning
the six days and the seventh;” on which day, as the Scripture says, God
“ceased”[1015] from His works, retiring into the contemplation of
Himself, but on which, as Celsus says (who does not abide by the letter
of the history, and who does not understand its meaning), God
“rested,”[1016]—a term which is not found in the record. With respect,
however, to the creation of the world, and the “rest[1017] which is
reserved after it for the people of God,” the subject is extensive, and
mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation. In the next place,
as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book, and to give it
an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain statements, such
as the following, relating to the first man, of whom he says: “We give
the same account as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him
as they do.” However, as regards “the conspiracies of brothers against
one another,” we know of none such, save that Cain conspired against
Abel, and Esau against Jacob; but not Abel against Cain, nor Jacob
against Esau: for if this had been the case, Celsus would have been
correct in saying that we give the same accounts as do the Jews of “the
conspiracies of brothers against one another.” Let it be granted,
however, that we speak of the same descent into Egypt as they, and of
their return[1018] thence, which was not a “flight,”[1019] as Celsus
considers it to have been, what does that avail towards founding an
accusation against us or against the Jews? Here, indeed, he thought to
cast ridicule upon us, when, in speaking of the Hebrew people, he termed
their exodus a “flight;” but when it was his business to investigate the
account of the punishments inflicted by God upon Egypt, that topic he
purposely passed by in silence.
Footnote 1014:
τῶν ἀπὸ μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας.
Footnote 1015:
κατέπαυσεν.
Footnote 1016:
ἀναπαυσάμενος.
Footnote 1017:
σαββατισμοῦ.
Footnote 1018:
τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἐπάνοδον.
Footnote 1019:
φυγὴν.
Chapter LX.
If, however, it be necessary to express ourselves with precision in our
answer to Celsus, who thinks that we hold the same opinions on the
matters in question as do the Jews, we would say that we both agree that
the books [of Scripture] were written by the Spirit of God, but that we
do _not_ agree about the meaning of their contents; for we do not
regulate our lives like the Jews, because we are of opinion that the
literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of
the legislation. And we maintain, that “when Moses is read, the veil is
upon their heart,”[1020] because the meaning of the law of Moses has
been concealed from those who have not welcomed[1021] the way which is
by Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for “the Lord
is that Spirit”), the veil being taken away, “he beholds, as in a mirror
with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord” in those thoughts which are
concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory becomes a
participator of the divine glory; the term “face” being used
figuratively for the “understanding,” as one would call it without a
figure, in which is the face of the “inner man,” filled with light and
glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law.
Footnote 1020:
2 Cor. iii. 15.
Footnote 1021:
ἀσπασαμένοις.
Chapter LXI.
After the above remarks he proceeds as follows: “Let no one suppose that
I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same
as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different
one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the
former that the Son came.” Now, if he imagine that the existence of
numerous heresies among the Christians is a ground of accusation against
Christianity, why, in a similar way, should it not be a ground of
accusation against philosophy, that the various sects of philosophers
differ from each other, not on small and indifferent points, but upon
those of the highest importance? Nay, medicine also ought to be a
subject of attack, on account of its many conflicting schools. Let it be
admitted, then, that there are amongst us some who deny that our God is
the same as that of the Jews: nevertheless, on that account those are
not to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the
same Deity is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles alike, as Paul,
too, distinctly says, who was a convert from Judaism to Christianity, “I
thank my God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure
conscience.”[1022] And let it be admitted also, that there is a third
class who call certain persons “carnal,” and others “spiritual” (I think
he here means the followers of Valentinus): yet what does this avail
against us, who belong to the church, and who make it an accusation
against such as hold that certain natures are saved, and that others
perish in consequence of their natural constitution?[1023] And let it be
admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as
Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves
philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of
providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who
introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who
are the disciples of Jesus. Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are
some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being
Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish
multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law,—and these are the twofold
sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of
a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other
human beings,—what does that avail by way of charge against such as
belong to the church, and whom Celsus has styled “those of the
multitude?”[1024] He adds, also, that certain of the Christians are
believers in the Sibyl,[1025] having probably misunderstood some who
blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and
termed those who held this belief Sibyllists.
Footnote 1022:
2 Tim. i. 3.
Footnote 1023:
ἐκ κατασκευῆς.
Footnote 1024:
ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους.
Footnote 1025:
Σιβυλλιστάς.
Chapter LXII.
He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the
existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their
teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of
Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son
of God, but term Simon the “power” of God, regarding whom they relate
certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could
become possessed of similar powers to those with which he believed Jesus
to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was
amongst the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how
Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the
greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and
to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all
that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus
knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and
Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from
Mariamne, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of
learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of
Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also,
from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of
philosophers, have never at any time met in with these sects. He makes
mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.
Chapter LXIII.
In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing still more
than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual custom, that
“there are others who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher
and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and
accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous.” And he
seems to me, indeed, in touching on these matters, to say with a certain
degree of truth, that there are certain others who have wickedly
invented another demon, and who have found him to be their lord, as they
wallow about in the great darkness of their ignorance. With respect,
however, to Antinous, who is compared with our Jesus, we shall not
repeat what we have already said in the preceding pages. “Moreover,” he
continues, “these persons utter against one another dreadful
blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will
they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each
other with a perfect hatred.” Now, in answer to this, we have already
said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to be found warring
against sects. We, however, who are followers of the word of Jesus, and
have exercised ourselves in thinking, and saying, and doing what is in
harmony with His words, “when reviled, bless; being persecuted, we
suffer it; being defamed, we entreat;”[1026] and we would _not_ utter
“all manner of things shameful to be spoken” against those who have
adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every
exertion to raise them to a better condition through adherence to the
Creator alone, and lead them to perform every act as those who will [one
day] be judged. And if those who hold different opinions will not be
convinced, we observe the injunction laid down for the treatment of
such: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition,
reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being
condemned of himself.”[1027] Moreover, we who know the maxim, “Blessed
are the peacemakers,” and this also, “Blessed are the meek,” would not
regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who
had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers.[1028]
Footnote 1026:
1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.
Footnote 1027:
Tit. iii. 10.
Footnote 1028:
Κίρκας καὶ κύκηθρα αἱμύλα.
Chapter LXIV.
Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the statement of the apostle,
which declares that “in the latter times some shall depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking
lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron,
forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God
hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them who
believe;”[1029] and to have misunderstood also those who employed these
declarations of the apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines
of Christianity. And it is owing to this cause that Celsus has said that
“certain among the Christians are called ‘cauterized in the
ears;’”[1030] and also that some are termed “enigmas,”[1031]—a term
which we have never met. The expression “stumbling-block”[1032] is,
indeed, of frequent occurrence in these writings,—an appellation which
we are accustomed to apply to those who turn away simple persons, and
those who are easily deceived, from sound doctrine. But neither we, nor,
I imagine, any other, whether Christian or heretic, know of any who are
styled Sirens, who betray and deceive,[1033] and stop their ears, and
change into swine those whom they delude. And yet this man, who affects
to know everything, uses such language as the following: “You may hear,”
he says, “all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in
their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words,
‘The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.’” And this is the
only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul’s
writings; and yet why should we not also employ innumerable other
quotations from the Scriptures, such as, “For though we do walk in the
flesh, we do not war after the flesh; (for the weapons of our warfare
are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of
strongholds,) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God?”[1034]
Footnote 1029:
Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.
Footnote 1030:
ἀκοῆς καυστήρια. Cf. note in Benedictine ed.
Footnote 1031:
αἰνίγματα. Cf. note in Benedictine ed.
Footnote 1032:
σκανδάλου.
Footnote 1033:
ἐξορχουμένας καὶ σοφιστρίας.
Footnote 1034:
Cf. 2 Cor. x. 3.
Chapter LXV.
But since he asserts that “you may hear all those who differ so widely
saying, ‘The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world,’” we shall
show the falsity of such a statement. For there are certain heretical
sects which do not receive the epistles of the Apostle Paul, as the two
sects of Ebionites, and those who are termed Encratites. Those, then,
who do not regard the apostle as a holy and wise man, will not adopt his
language, and say, “The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.”
And consequently in this point, too, Celsus is guilty of falsehood. He
continues, moreover, to linger over the accusations which he brings
against the diversity of sects which exist, but does not appear to me to
be accurate in the language which he employs, nor to have carefully
observed or understood how it is that those Christians who have made
progress in their studies say that they are possessed of greater
knowledge than the Jews; and also, whether they acknowledge the same
Scriptures, but interpret them differently, or whether they do not
recognise these books as divine. For we find both of these views
prevailing among the sects. He then continues: “Although they have no
foundation for their doctrine, let us examine the system itself; and, in
the first place, let us mention the corruptions which they have made
through ignorance and misunderstanding, when in the discussion of
elementary principles they express their opinions in the most absurd
manner on things which they do not understand, such as the following.”
And then, to certain expressions which are continually in the mouths of
the believers in Christianity, he opposes certain others from the
writings of the philosophers, with the object of making it appear that
the noble sentiments which Celsus supposes to be used by Christians have
been expressed in better and clearer language by the philosophers, in
order that he might drag away to the study of philosophy those who are
caught by opinions which at once evidence their noble and religious
character. We shall, however, here terminate the fifth book, and begin
the sixth with what follows.
BOOK VI.
Chapter I.
In beginning this our sixth book, we desire, my reverend Ambrosius, to
answer in it those accusations which Celsus brings against the
_Christians_, not, as might be supposed, those objections which he has
adduced from _writers on philosophy_. For he has quoted a considerable
number of passages, chiefly from Plato, and has placed alongside of
these such declarations of Holy Scripture as are fitted to impress even
the intelligent mind; subjoining the assertion, that “these things are
stated much better among the Greeks [than in the Scriptures], and in a
manner which is free from all exaggerations[1035] and promises on the
part of God, or the Son of God.” Now we maintain, that if it is the
object of the ambassadors of the truth to confer benefits upon the
greatest possible number, and, so far as they can, to win over to its
side, through their love to men, every one without exception—intelligent
as well as simple—not Greeks only, but also barbarians (and great,
indeed, is the humanity which should succeed in converting the rustic
and the ignorant[1036]), it is manifest that they must adopt a style of
address fitted to do good to all, and to gain over to them men of every
sort. Those, on the other hand, who turn away[1037] from the ignorant as
being mere slaves,[1038] and unable to understand the flowing periods of
a polished and logical discourse, and so devote their attention solely
to such as have been brought up amongst literary pursuits,[1039] confine
their views of the public good within very strait and narrow limits.
Footnote 1035:
ἀνατάσεως.
Footnote 1036:
πολὺ δὲ τὸ ἥμερον ἐὰν ... οἷος τέ τις γένηται ἐπιστρέφειν.
Footnote 1037:
πολλὰ χαίρειν φράσαντες.
Footnote 1038:
ἀνδραπόδοις.
Footnote 1039:
καὶ μὴ οἵοις τε κατακούειν τῆς ἐν φράσει λόγων καὶ τάξει
ἀπαγγελλομένων ἀκολουθίας, μόνων ἐφρόντισαν τῶν ἀνατραφέντων ἐν λόγοις
καὶ μαθήμασιν.
Chapter II.
I have made these remarks in reply to the charges which Celsus and
others bring against the simplicity of the language of Scripture, which
appears to be thrown into the shade by the splendour of polished
discourse. For our prophets, and Jesus Himself, and His apostles, were
careful to adopt[1040] a style of address which should not merely convey
the truth, but which should be fitted to gain over the multitude, until
each one, attracted and led onwards, should ascend as far as he could
towards the comprehension of those mysteries which are contained in
these apparently simple words. For, if I may venture to say so, few have
been benefited (if they have indeed been benefited at all) by the
beautiful and polished style of Plato, and those who have written like
him; while, on the contrary, many have received advantage from those who
wrote and taught in a simple and practical manner, and with a view to
the wants of the multitude. It is easy, indeed, to observe that Plato is
found only in the hands of those who profess to be literary men;[1041]
while Epictetus is admired by persons of ordinary capacity, who have a
desire to be benefited, and who perceive the improvement which may be
derived from his writings. Now we make these remarks, not to disparage
Plato (for the great world of men has found even him useful), but to
point out the aim of those who said: “And my speech and my preaching was
not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the
Spirit and of power, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God.”[1042] For the word of God declares that
the preaching (although in itself true and most worthy of belief) is not
sufficient to reach the human heart, unless a certain power be imparted
to the speaker from God, and a grace appear upon his words; and it is
only by the divine agency that this takes place in those who speak
effectually. The prophet says in the sixty-seventh Psalm, that “the Lord
will give a word with great power to them who preach.”[1043] If, then,
it should be granted with respect to certain points, that the same
doctrines are found among the Greeks as in our own Scriptures, yet they
do not possess the same power of attracting and disposing the souls of
men to follow them. And therefore the disciples of Jesus, men ignorant
so far as regards Grecian philosophy, yet traversed many countries of
the world, impressing, agreeably to the desire of the Logos, each one of
their hearers according to his deserts, so that they received a moral
amelioration in proportion to the inclination of their will to accept of
that which is good.
Footnote 1040:
ἐνεῖδον.
Footnote 1041:
φιλολόγων.
Footnote 1042:
1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.
Footnote 1043:
Such is the reading of the Septuagint version. The Masoretic text has:
“The Lord gave a word; of them who published it there was a great
host.”
Chapter III.
Let the ancient sages, then, make known their sayings to those who are
capable of understanding them. Suppose that Plato, for example, the son
of Ariston, in one of his Epistles, is discoursing about the “chief
good,” and that he says, “The chief good can by no means be described in
words, but is produced by long habit, and bursts forth suddenly as a
light in the soul, as from a fire which had leapt forth.” We, then, on
hearing these words, admit that they are well said, for it is God who
revealed to men these as well as all other noble expressions. And for
this reason it is that we maintain that those who have entertained
correct ideas regarding God, but who have not offered to Him a worship
in harmony with the truth, are liable to the punishments which fall on
sinners. For respecting such Paul says in express words: “The wrath of
God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness
of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be
known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For
the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when
they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”[1044]
The truth, then, is verily held [in unrighteousness], as our Scriptures
testify, by those who are of opinion that “the chief good cannot be
described in words,” but who assert that, “after long custom and
familiar usage,[1045] a light becomes suddenly kindled in the soul, as
if by a fire springing forth, and that it now supports itself alone.”
Footnote 1044:
Cf. Rom. i. 18-23.
Footnote 1045:
ἐκ πολλῆς συνουσίας γινομένης περὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα αὐτὸ, καὶ τοῦ συζῆν.
Chapter IV.
Notwithstanding, those who have written in this manner regarding the
“chief good” will go down to the Piræus and offer prayer to Artemis, as
if she were God, and will look [with approval] upon the solemn assembly
held by ignorant men; and after giving utterance to philosophical
remarks of such profundity regarding the soul, and describing its
passage [to a happier world] after a virtuous life, they pass from those
great topics which God has revealed to them, and adopt mean and trifling
thoughts, and offer a cock to Esculapius![1046] And although they had
been enabled to form representations both of the “invisible things” of
God and of the “archetypal forms” of things from the creation of the
world, and from [the contemplation of] sensible things, from which they
ascend to those objects which are comprehended by the understanding
alone,—and although they had no mean glimpses of His “eternal power and
Godhead,”[1047] they nevertheless became “foolish in their
imaginations,” and their “foolish heart” was involved in darkness and
ignorance as to the [true] worship of God. Moreover, we may see those
who greatly pride themselves upon their wisdom and theology worshipping
the image of a corruptible man, _in honour_, they say, of Him, and
sometimes even descending, with the Egyptians, to the worship of birds,
and four-footed beasts, and creeping things! And although some may
appear to have risen above such practices, nevertheless they will be
found to have changed the truth of God into a lie, and to worship and
serve the “creature more than the Creator.”[1048] As the wise and
learned among the Greeks, then, commit errors in the service which they
render to God, God “chose the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise; and base things of the world, and things that are weak, and
things which are despised, and things which are not, to bring to nought
things that are;”[1049] and this, truly, “that no flesh should glory in
the presence of God.” _Our_ wise men, however,—Moses, the most ancient
of them all, and the prophets who followed him,—knowing that the chief
good could by no means be described in words, were the first who wrote
that, as God manifests Himself to the deserving, and to those who are
qualified to behold Him,[1050] He appeared to Abraham, or to Isaac, or
to Jacob. But who He was that appeared, and of what form, and in what
manner, and like to which of mortal beings,[1051] they have left to be
investigated by those who are able to show that they resemble those
persons to whom God showed Himself: for He was seen not by their bodily
eyes, but by the pure heart. For, according to the declaration of our
Jesus, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”[1052]
Footnote 1046:
Cf. Plato, _Phædo_.
Footnote 1047:
καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὰς ἰδέας φαντασθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ
κόσμου, καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ἀφ’ ὧν ἀναβαίνουσιν ἐπὶ τὰ νοούμενα· τὴν τε
ἀΐδιον αὐτοὺ δύναμιν καὶ θεότητα οὐκ ἀγεννῶς ἰδόντες, etc.
Footnote 1048:
Rom. i. 25.
Footnote 1049:
Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27, 28, 29.
Footnote 1050:
ἐπιτηδείοις.
Footnote 1051:
καὶ τίνι τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν. Boherellus understands ὅμοιος, which has been
adopted in the translation.
Footnote 1052:
Cf. Matt. v. 8.
Chapter V.
But that a light is suddenly kindled in the soul, as by a fire leaping
forth, is a fact known long ago to our Scriptures; as when the prophet
said, “Light ye for yourselves the light of knowledge.”[1053] John also,
who lived after him, said, “That which was in the Logos was life, and
the life was the light of men;”[1054] which “true light lighteneth every
man that cometh into the world” (_i.e._ the true world, which is
perceived by the understanding[1055]), and maketh him a light of the
world: “For this light shone in our hearts, to give the light of the
glorious gospel of God in the face of Christ Jesus.”[1056] And therefore
that very ancient prophet, who prophesied many generations before the
reign of Cyrus (for he was older than he by more than fourteen
generations), expressed himself in these words: “The Lord is my light
and my salvation: whom shall I fear?”[1057] and, “Thy law is a lamp unto
my feet, and a light unto my path;”[1058] and again, “The light of Thy
countenance, O Lord, was manifested towards us;”[1059] and, “In Thy
light we shall see light.”[1060] And the Logos, exhorting us to come to
this light, says, in the prophecies of Isaiah: “Enlighten thyself,
enlighten thyself, O Jerusalem; for thy light is come, and the glory of
the Lord is risen upon thee.”[1061] The same prophet also, when
predicting the advent of Jesus, who was to turn away men from the
worship of idols, and of images, and of demons, says, “To those that sat
in the land and shadow of death, upon them hath the light arisen;”[1062]
and again, “The people that sat in darkness saw a great light.”[1063]
Observe now the difference between the fine phrases of Plato respecting
the “chief good,” and the declarations of our prophets regarding the
“light” of the blessed; and notice that the truth as it is contained in
Plato concerning this subject did not at all help his readers to attain
to a pure worship of God, nor even himself, who could philosophize so
grandly about the “chief good,” whereas the simple language of the Holy
Scriptures has led to their honest readers being filled with a divine
spirit;[1064] and this light is nourished within them by the oil, which
in a certain parable is said to have preserved the light of the torches
of the five wise virgins.[1065]
Footnote 1053:
Hos. x. 12. φωτίσατε ἑαυτοῖς φῶς γνῶσεως (LXX.). The Masoretic
text is, נִ֥ירוּ לָכֶ֖ם נִ֑יר וְעֵת, where for וְעֵת (_and time_)
the Septuagint translator apparently read דעת (_knowledge_), ד and
ו being interchanged from their similarity.
Footnote 1054:
Cf. John i. 3, 4.
Footnote 1055:
τὸν ἀληθινὸν καὶ νοητόν.
Footnote 1056:
Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 6.
Footnote 1057:
Ps. xxvii. 1 (attributed to David).
Footnote 1058:
Ps. cxix. 105.
Footnote 1059:
Ps. iv. 6 (Heb. “Lift upon us,” etc.).
Footnote 1060:
Ps. xxxvi. 9.
Footnote 1061:
Cf. Isa. lx. 1.
Footnote 1062:
Cf. Isa. ix. 2.
Footnote 1063:
Cf. Isa. ix. 2.
Footnote 1064:
ἐνθουσιᾶν.
Footnote 1065:
Cf. Matt. xxv. 4.
Chapter VI.
Seeing, however, that Celsus quotes from an epistle of Plato another
statement to the following effect, viz.: “If it appeared to me that
these matters could be adequately explained to the multitude in writing
and in oral address, what nobler pursuit in life could have been
followed by me, than to commit to writing what was to prove of such
advantage to human beings, and to lead the nature of all men onwards to
the light?”—let us then consider this point briefly, viz. whether or not
Plato were acquainted with any doctrines more profound than are
contained in his writings, or more divine than those which he has left
behind him, leaving it to each one to investigate the subject according
to his ability, while we demonstrate that our prophets did know of
greater things than any in the Scriptures, but which they did not commit
to writing. Ezekiel, _e.g._, received a roll,[1066] written within and
without, in which were contained “lamentations,” and “songs,” and
“denunciations;”[1067] but at the command of the Logos he swallowed the
book, in order that its contents might not be written, and so made known
to unworthy persons. John also is recorded to have seen and done a
similar thing.[1068] Nay, Paul even heard “unspeakable words, which it
is not lawful for a man to utter.”[1069] And it is related of Jesus, who
was greater than all these, that He conversed with His disciples in
private, and especially in their secret retreats, concerning the gospel
of God; but the words which He uttered have not been preserved, because
it appeared to the evangelists that they could not be adequately
conveyed to the multitude in writing or in speech. And if it were not
tiresome to repeat the truth regarding these illustrious individuals, I
would say that they saw better than Plato (by means of the intelligence
which they received by the grace of God), what things were to be
committed to _writing_, and how this was to be done, and what was by no
means to be written to the multitude, and what was to be expressed in
_words_, and what was not to be so conveyed. And once more, John, in
teaching us the difference between what ought to be committed to writing
and what not, declares that he heard seven thunders instructing him on
certain matters, and forbidding him to commit their words to
writing.[1070]
Footnote 1066:
κεφαλίδα βιβλίου.
Footnote 1067:
οὐαί; cf. Ezek. ii. 9, 10.
Footnote 1068:
Cf. Apoc. x. 9.
Footnote 1069:
2 Cor. xii. 4.
Footnote 1070:
Cf. Apoc. x. 4.
Chapter VII.
There might also be found in the writings of Moses and of the prophets,
who are older not only than Plato, but even than Homer and the invention
of letters among the Greeks, passages worthy of the grace of God
bestowed upon them, and filled with great thoughts, to which they gave
utterance, but not because they understood Plato imperfectly, as Celsus
imagines. For how was it possible that they should have heard one who
was not yet born? And if any one should apply the words of Celsus to the
apostles of Jesus, who were younger than Plato, say whether it is not on
the very face of it an incredible assertion, that Paul the tentmaker,
and Peter the fisherman, and John who left his father’s nets, should,
through misunderstanding the language of Plato in his Epistles, have
expressed themselves as they have done regarding God? But as Celsus now,
after having often required of us immediate assent [to his views], as if
he were babbling forth something new in addition to what he has already
advanced, only repeats himself,[1071] what we have said in reply may
suffice. Seeing, however, he produces another quotation from Plato, in
which he asserts that the employment of the method of question and
answer sheds light on the thoughts of those who philosophize like him,
let us show from the Holy Scriptures that the word of God also
encourages us to the practice of dialectics: Solomon, _e.g._ declaring
in one passage, that “instruction unquestioned goes astray;”[1072] and
Jesus the son of Sirach, who has left us the treatise called “Wisdom,”
declaring in another, that “the knowledge of the unwise is as words that
will not stand investigation.”[1073] Our methods of discussion, however,
are rather of a gentle kind; for we have learned that he who presides
over the preaching of the word ought to be able to confute gainsayers.
But if some continue indolent, and do not train themselves so as to
attend to the reading of the word, and “to search the Scriptures,” and,
agreeably to the command of Jesus, to investigate the _meaning_ of the
sacred writings, and to ask of God concerning them, and to keep
“knocking” at what may be closed within them, the Scripture is not on
that account to be regarded as devoid of wisdom.
Footnote 1071:
πολλάκις δὲ ἤδη ὁ Κέλσος θρυλλήσας ὡς ἀξιούμενον εὐθέως πιστεύειν, ὡς
καινόν τι παρὰ τὰ πρότερον εἰρημένα. Guietus thus amends the passage:
πολλάκις δὲ ἤδη ὁ Κέλσος ἀξιούμενος εὐθέως πιστεύειν, ὡς καινόν τι
παρὰ τὰ πρότερον εἰρημένα θρυλλήσας, etc. Boherellus would change
ἀξιούμενον into ἀξιοῦμεν.
Footnote 1072:
παιδεία ἀνεξέλεγκτος πλανᾶται; cf. Prov. x. 17.
Footnote 1073:
γνῶσις ἀσυνέτου, ἀδιεξέταστοι λόγοι; cf. Ecclus. xxi. 18.
Chapter VIII.
In the next place, after other Platonic declarations, which demonstrate
that “the good” can be known by few, he adds: “Since the multitude,
being puffed up with a contempt for others, which is far from right, and
being filled with vain and lofty hopes, assert that, because they have
come to the knowledge of some venerable doctrines, certain things are
true.” “Yet although Plato predicted these things, he nevertheless does
not talk marvels,[1074] nor shut the mouth of those who wish to ask him
for information on the subject of his promises; nor does he command them
to come at once and believe that a God of a particular kind exists, and
that he has a son of a particular nature, who descended [to earth] and
conversed with me.” Now, in answer to this we have to say, that with
regard to Plato, it is Aristander, I think, who has related that he was
not the son of Ariston, but of a phantom, which approached Amphictione
in the guise of Apollo. And there are several other of the followers of
Plato who, in their lives of their master, have made the same statement.
What are we to say, moreover, about Pythagoras, who relates the greatest
possible amount of wonders, and who, in a general assembly of the
Greeks, showed his ivory thigh, and asserted that he recognised the
shield which he wore when he was Euphorbus, and who is said to have
appeared on one day in two different cities! He, moreover, who will
declare that what is related of Plato and Socrates belongs to the
marvellous, will quote the story of the swan which was recommended to
Socrates while he was asleep, and of the master saying when he met the
young man, “This, then, was the swan!”[1075] Nay, the third eye which
Plato saw that he himself possessed, he will refer to the category of
prodigies.[1076] But occasion for slanderous accusations will never be
wanting to those who are ill-disposed, and who wish to speak evil of
what has happened to such as are raised above the multitude. Such
persons will deride as a fiction even the demon of Socrates. We do not,
then, relate marvels when we narrate the history of Jesus, nor have His
genuine disciples recorded any such stories of Him; whereas this Celsus,
who professes universal knowledge, and who quotes many of the sayings of
Plato, is, I think, intentionally silent on the discourse concerning the
Son of God which is related in Plato’s epistle to Hermeas and Coriscus.
Plato’s words are as follows: “And calling to witness the God of all
things—the ruler both of things present and things to come, father and
lord both of the ruler and cause—whom, if we are philosophers indeed, we
shall all clearly know, so far as it is possible for happy human beings
to attain such knowledge.”[1077]
Footnote 1074:
οὐ τερατεύεται.
Footnote 1075:
The night before Ariston brought Plato to Socrates as his pupil, the
latter dreamed that a swan from the altar of Cupid alighted on his
bosom. Cf. Pausanias in _Atticis_, p. 58.
Footnote 1076:
“Alicubi forsan occurrit: me vero uspiam legisse non memini. Credo
Platonem per tertium oculum suam πολυμάθειαν et scientiam, quâ ceteris
anteibat, denotare voluisse.”—SPENCER.
Footnote 1077:
Plato, _Epist._ vi.
Chapter IX.
Celsus quotes another saying of Plato to the following effect: “It has
occurred to me to speak once more upon these subjects at greater length,
as perhaps I might express myself about them more clearly than I have
already done: for there is a certain ‘real’ cause, which proves a
hindrance in the way of him who has ventured, even to a slight extent,
to write on such topics; and as this has been frequently mentioned by me
on former occasions, it appears to me that it ought to be stated now. In
each of existing things, which are necessarily employed in the
acquisition of knowledge, there are three elements; knowledge itself is
the fourth; and that ought to be laid down as the fifth which is both
capable of being known and is true. Of these, one is ‘name;’ the second
is ‘word;’ the third, ‘image;’ the fourth, ‘knowledge.’”[1078] Now,
according to this division, John is introduced before Jesus as the voice
of one crying in the wilderness, so as to correspond with the “name” of
Plato; and the second after John, who is pointed out by him, is Jesus,
with whom agrees the statement, “The Word became flesh,” and that
corresponds to the “word” of Plato. Plato terms the third “image;” but
we, who apply the expression “image” to something different, would say
with greater precision, that the mark of the wounds which is made in the
soul by the word is the Christ which is in each one of us, and this mark
is impressed by Christ the Word.[1079] And whether Christ, the wisdom
which is in those of us who are perfect, correspond to the “fourth”
element—knowledge—will become known to him who has the capacity to
ascertain it.
Footnote 1078:
ὧν ἓν μὲν, ὄνομα· δεύτερον δὲ, λόγος· τὸ δὲ τρίτον, εἴδωλον· τὸ
τέταρτον δὲ, ἐπιστήμη.
Footnote 1079:
τρανότερον φήσομεν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινόμενον μετὰ τὸν λόγον τῶν τραυμάτων
τύπον, τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν ἐν ἑκάστῳ Χριστὸν, ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ λόγου.
Chapter X.
He next continues: “You see how Plato, although maintaining that [the
chief good] cannot be described in words, yet, to avoid the appearance
of retreating to an irrefutable position, subjoins a reason in
explanation of this difficulty, as even ‘nothing’[1080] might perhaps be
explained in words.” But as Celsus adduces this to prove that we ought
not to yield a simple assent, but to furnish a reason for our belief, we
shall quote also the words of Paul, where he says, in censuring the
hasty[1081] believer, “unless ye have believed inconsiderately.”[1082]
Now, through his practice of repeating himself, Celsus, so far as he
can, forces us to be guilty of tautology, reiterating, after the
boastful language which has been quoted, that “Plato is not guilty of
boasting and falsehood, giving out that he has made some new discovery,
or that he has come down from heaven to announce it, but acknowledges
whence these statements are derived.” Now, if one wished to reply to
Celsus, one might say in answer to such assertions, that even Plato _is_
guilty of boasting, when in the _Timœus_ he puts the following language
in the mouth of Zeus: “Gods of gods, whose creator and father I am,” and
so on. And if any one will defend such language on account of the
meaning which is conveyed under the name of Zeus, thus speaking in the
dialogue of Plato, why should not he who investigates the meaning of the
words of the Son of God, or those of the Creator[1083] in the prophets,
express a profounder meaning than any conveyed by the words of Zeus in
the _Timœus_? For the characteristic of divinity is the announcement of
future events, predicted not by human power, but shown by the result to
be due to a divine spirit in him who made the announcement. Accordingly,
we do not say to each of our hearers, “Believe, first of all, that He
whom I introduce to thee is the Son of God;” but we put the gospel
before each one, as his character and disposition may fit him to receive
it, inasmuch as we have learned to know “how we ought to answer every
man.”[1084] And there are some who are capable of receiving nothing more
than an exhortation to believe, and to these we address that alone;
while we approach others, again, as far as possible, in the way of
demonstration, by means of question and answer. Nor do we at all say, as
Celsus scoffingly alleges, “Believe that He whom I introduce to thee is
the Son of God, although He was shamefully bound, and disgracefully
punished, and very recently[1085] was most contumeliously treated before
the eyes of all men;” neither do we add, “Believe it even the more [on
that account].” For it is our endeavour to state, on each individual
point, arguments more numerous even than we have brought forward in the
preceding pages.
Footnote 1080:
τὸ μηδέν.
Footnote 1081:
εἰκῆ πιστεύοντι.
Footnote 1082:
1 Cor. xv. 2.
Footnote 1083:
τοῦ δημιουργοῦ.
Footnote 1084:
Cf. Col. iv. 6.
Footnote 1085:
χθὲς καὶ πρώην.
Chapter XI.
After this Celsus continues: “If these (meaning the Christians) bring
forward this person, and others, again, a different individual [as the
Christ], while the common and ready cry[1086] of all parties is,
‘Believe, if thou wilt be saved, or else begone,’ what shall those do
who are in earnest about their salvation? Shall they cast the dice, in
order to divine whither they may betake themselves, and whom they shall
join?” Now we shall answer this objection in the following manner, as
the clearness of the case impels us to do. If it had been recorded that
several individuals had appeared in human life as sons of God in the
manner in which Jesus did, and if each of them had drawn a party of
adherents to his side, so that, on account of the similarity of the
profession [in the case of each individual] that he was the Son of God,
he to whom his followers bore testimony to that effect was an object of
dispute, there would have been ground for his saying, “If these bring
forward this person, and others a different individual, while the common
and ready cry of all parties is, ‘Believe, if thou wilt be saved, or
else begone,’” and so on; whereas it has been proclaimed to the entire
world that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who visited the human
race: for those who, like Celsus, have supposed that [the acts of Jesus]
were a series of prodigies,[1087] and who for that reason wished to
perform acts of the same kind,[1088] that they, too, might gain a
similar mastery over the minds of men, were convicted of being utter
nonentities.[1089] Such were Simon, the Magus of Samaria, and Dositheus,
who was a native of the same place; since the former gave out that he
was the power of God that is called great,[1090] and the latter that he
was the Son of God. Now Simonians are found nowhere throughout the
world; and yet, in order to gain over to himself many followers, Simon
freed his disciples from the danger of death, which the Christians were
taught to prefer, by teaching them to regard idolatry as a matter of
indifference. But even at the beginning of their existence the followers
of Simon were not exposed to persecution. For that wicked demon who was
conspiring against the doctrine of Jesus, was well aware that none of
his own maxims would be weakened by the teaching of Simon. The
Dositheans, again, even in former times, did not rise to any eminence,
and now they are completely extinguished, so that it is said their whole
number does not amount to thirty. Judas of Galilee also, as Luke relates
in the Acts of the Apostles,[1091] wished to call himself some great
personage, as did Theudas before him; but as their doctrine was not of
God, they were destroyed, and all who obeyed them were immediately
dispersed. We do not, then, “cast the dice in order to divine whither we
shall betake ourselves, and whom we shall join,” as if there were many
claimants able to draw us after them by the profession of their having
come down from God to visit the human race. On these points, however, we
have said enough.
Footnote 1086:
κοινὸν δὲ πάντων ἢ καὶ πρόχειρον. For ἤ, Boherellus reads ᾖ.
Footnote 1087:
οἱ γὰρ ὁμοίως Κελσῷ ὑπολαβόντες τετερατεῦσθαι. The word ὁμοίως
formerly stood, in the text of Spencer and Ruæeus, before
τετερατεῦσθαι, but is properly expunged, as arising from the preceding
ὁμοίως. Boherellus remarks: “Forte aliud quid exciderit, verbi gratiâ,
τὰ τοῦ Ιησοῦ.”
Footnote 1088:
τερατεύσασθαι.
Footnote 1089:
τὸ οὐδέν.
Footnote 1090:
Cf. Acts viii. 10.
Footnote 1091:
Cf. Acts v. 36, 37.
Chapter XII.
Accordingly, let us pass on to another charge made by Celsus, who is not
even acquainted with the words [of our sacred books], but who, from
misunderstanding them, has said that “we declare the wisdom that is
among men to be foolishness with God;” Paul having said that “the wisdom
of the _world_ is foolishness with God.”[1092] Celsus says that “the
reason of this has been stated long ago.” And the reason he imagines to
be, “our desire to win over by means of this saying the ignorant and
foolish alone.” But, as he himself has intimated, he has said the same
thing before; and we, to the best of our ability, replied to it.
Notwithstanding this, however, he wished to show that this statement was
an invention[1093] of ours, and borrowed from the Grecian sages, who
declare that human wisdom is of one kind, and divine of another. And he
quotes the words of Heraclitus, where he says in one passage, that
“man’s method of action is not regulated by fixed principles, but that
of God is;”[1094] and in another, that “a foolish man listens to a
demon, as a boy does to a man.” He quotes, moreover, the following from
the _Apology of Socrates_, of which Plato was the author: “For I, O men
of Athens, have obtained this name by no other means than by my wisdom.
And of what sort is this wisdom? Such, probably, as is human; for in
that respect I venture to think that I am in reality wise.”[1095] Such
are the passages adduced by Celsus. But I shall subjoin also the
following from Plato’s letter to Hermeas, and Erastus, and Coriscus: “To
Erastus and Coriscus I say, although I am an old man, that, in addition
to this noble knowledge of ‘forms’ [which they possess], they need a
wisdom, with regard to the class of wicked and unjust persons, which may
serve as a protective and repelling force against them. For they are
inexperienced, in consequence of having passed a large portion of their
lives with us, who are moderate[1096] individuals, and not wicked. I
have accordingly said that they need these things, in order that they
may not be compelled to neglect the true wisdom, and to apply themselves
in a greater degree than is proper to that which is necessary and
human.”
Footnote 1092:
Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 19.
Footnote 1093:
πεπλασμένον ἡμῖν.
Footnote 1094:
ἦθος γὰρ ἀνθρώπειον μὲν οὐκ ἔχει γνώμας, θεῖον δὲ ἔχει.
Footnote 1095:
Cf. Plato’s _Apolog._
Footnote 1096:
μετρίων ὄντων.
Chapter XIII.
According to the foregoing, then, the one kind of wisdom is human, and
the other divine. Now the “human” wisdom is that which is termed by us
the wisdom of the “world,” which is “foolishness with God;” whereas the
“divine”—being different from the “human,” because it is “divine”—comes,
through the grace of God who bestows it, to those who have evinced their
capacity for receiving it, and especially to those who, from knowing the
difference between either kind of wisdom, say, in their prayers to God,
“Even if one among the sons of men be perfect, while the wisdom is
wanting that comes from Thee, he shall be accounted as nothing.”[1097]
We maintain, indeed, that “human” wisdom is an exercise for the soul,
but that “divine” wisdom is the “end,” being also termed the “strong”
meat of the soul by him who has said that “strong meat belongeth to them
that are perfect,[1098] even those who by reason of use have their
senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”[1099] This opinion,
moreover, is truly an ancient one, its antiquity not being referred
back, as Celsus thinks, merely to Heraclitus and Plato. For before these
individuals lived, the prophets distinguished between the two kinds of
wisdom. It is sufficient for the present to quote from the words of
David what he says regarding the man who is wise, according to divine
wisdom, that “he will not see corruption when he beholds wise men
dying.”[1100] Divine wisdom, accordingly, being different from faith, is
the “first” of the so-called “charismata” of God; and the “second” after
it—in the estimation of those who know how to distinguish such things
accurately—is what is called “knowledge;”[1101] and the “third”—seeing
that even the more simple class of men who adhere to the service of God,
so far as they can, must be saved—is faith. And therefore Paul says: “To
one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of
knowledge by the same Spirit, to another faith by the same
Spirit.”[1102] And therefore it is no ordinary individuals whom you will
find to have participated in the “divine” wisdom, but the more excellent
and distinguished among those who have given in their adherence to
Christianity; for it is not “to the most ignorant, or servile, or most
uninstructed of mankind,” that one would discourse upon the topics
relating to the divine wisdom.
Footnote 1097:
Cf. Wisd. of Sol. ix. 6.
Footnote 1098:
τέλειοι.
Footnote 1099:
Heb. v. 14.
Footnote 1100:
Ps. xlix. 9, 10 (LXX.).
Footnote 1101:
γνῶσις.
Footnote 1102:
1 Cor. xii. 8, 9.
Chapter XIV.
In designating others by the epithets of “uninstructed, and servile, and
ignorant,” Celsus, I suppose, means those who are not acquainted with
his laws, nor trained in the branches of Greek learning; while we, on
the other hand, deem those to be “uninstructed” who are not ashamed to
address [supplications] to inanimate objects, and to call upon those for
health that have no strength, and to ask the dead for life, and to
entreat the helpless for assistance.[1103] And although some may say
that these objects are not gods, but only imitations and symbols of real
divinities, nevertheless these very individuals, in imagining that the
hands of low mechanics[1104] can frame imitations of divinity, are
“uninstructed, and servile, and ignorant;” for we assert that the
lowest[1105] among us have been set free from this ignorance and want of
knowledge, while the most intelligent can understand and grasp the
divine hope. We do _not_ maintain, however, that it is impossible for
one who has not been trained in earthly wisdom to receive the “divine,”
but we _do_ acknowledge that all human wisdom is “folly” in comparison
with the “divine.” In the next place, instead of endeavouring to adduce
reasons, as he ought, for his assertions, he terms us “sorcerers,”[1106]
and asserts that “we flee away with headlong speed[1107] from the more
polished[1108] class of persons, because they are not suitable subjects
for our impositions, while we seek to decoy[1109] those who are more
rustic.” Now he did not observe that from the very beginning our wise
men were trained in the external branches of learning: Moses, _e.g._, in
all the wisdom of the Egyptians; Daniel, and Ananias, and Azariah, and
Mishael, in all Assyrian learning, so that they were found to surpass in
tenfold degree all the wise men of that country. At the present time,
moreover, the churches have, in proportion to the multitudes [of
ordinary believers], a few “wise” men, who have come over to them from
that wisdom which is said by us to be “according to the flesh;”[1110]
and they have also some who have advanced from it to that wisdom which
is “divine.”
Footnote 1103:
τοὺς μὴ αἰσχυνομένους ἐν τῷ τοῖς ἀψύχοις προσλαλεῖν, καὶ περὶ μὲν
ὑγείας τὸ ἀσθενὲς ἐπικαλουμένους, περὶ δὲ ζωῆς τὸ νεκρὸν ἀξιοῦντας,
περὶ δὲ ἐπικουρίας τὸ ἀπορώτατον ἱκετεύοντας.
Footnote 1104:
βαναύσων.
Footnote 1105:
τοὺς ἐσχάτους.
Footnote 1106:
γόητας.
Footnote 1107:
προτροπάδην.
Footnote 1108:
τοὺς χαριεστέρους.
Footnote 1109:
παλεύομεν.
Footnote 1110:
Cf. 1 Cor. i. 26.
Chapter XV.
Celsus, in the next place, as one who has heard the subject of humility
greatly talked about,[1111] but who has not been at the pains to
understand it,[1112] would wish to speak evil of that humility which is
practised among us, and imagines that it is borrowed from some words of
Plato imperfectly understood, where he expresses himself in the _Laws_
as follows: “Now God, according to the ancient account, having in
Himself both the beginning and end and middle of all existing things,
proceeds according to nature, and marches straight on.[1113] He is
constantly followed by justice, which is the avenger of all breaches of
the divine law: he who is about to become happy follows her closely in
humility, and becomingly adorned.”[1114] He did not observe, however,
that in writers much older than Plato the following words occur in a
prayer: “Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty, neither do
I walk in great matters, nor in things too wonderful for me; if I had
not been humble,”[1115] etc. Now these words show that he who is of
humble mind does not by any means humble himself in an unseemly or
inauspicious manner, falling down upon his knees, or casting himself
headlong on the ground, putting on the dress of the miserable, or
sprinkling himself with dust. But he who is of humble mind in the sense
of the prophet, while “walking in great and wonderful things,” which are
above his capacity—viz. those doctrines that are truly great, and those
thoughts that are wonderful—“humbles himself under the mighty hand of
God.” If there are some, however, who through their stupidity[1116] have
not clearly understood the doctrine of humiliation, and act as they do,
it is not our doctrine which is to be blamed; but we must extend our
forgiveness to the stupidity[1117] of those who aim at higher things,
and owing to their fatuity of mind[1118] fail to attain them. He who is
“humble and becomingly adorned,” is so in a greater degree than Plato’s
“humble and becomingly adorned” individual: for he is becomingly
adorned, on the one hand, because “he walks in things great and
wonderful,” which are beyond his capacity; and humble, on the other
hand, because, while being in the midst of such, he yet voluntarily
humbles himself, not under any one at random, but under “the mighty hand
of God,” through Jesus Christ, the teacher of such instruction, “who did
not deem equality with God a thing to be eagerly clung to, but made
Himself of no reputation, and took on Him the form of a servant, and
being found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross.”[1119] And so great is this
doctrine of humiliation, that it has no ordinary individual as its
teacher; but our great Saviour Himself says: “Learn of me, for I am meek
and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”[1120]
Footnote 1111:
ὡς περιηχηθεὶς τὰ περὶ ταπεινοφροσύνης.
Footnote 1112:
μὴ ἐπιμελῶς αὐτὴν νοήσας.
Footnote 1113:
εὐθείᾳ περαίνει κατὰ φύσιν παραπορευόμενος.
Footnote 1114:
Plato, _de Legibus_, iv.
Footnote 1115:
Ps. cxxxi. 1, 2 (LXX.). The clause, “If I had not been humble,” seems
to belong to the following verse.
Footnote 1116:
τῇ ἰδιωτείᾳ.
Footnote 1117:
τῇ ἰδιωτείᾳ.
Footnote 1118:
διὰ τὸν ἰδιωτισμόν.
Footnote 1119:
Cf. Phil. ii. 6, 8.
Footnote 1120:
Cf. Matt. xi. 20.
Chapter XVI.
In the next place, with regard to the declaration of Jesus against rich
men, when He said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,”[1121]
Celsus alleges that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and
that Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that “it
was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time
for riches.”[1122] Now who is there that is capable of giving even
moderate attention to affairs—not merely among the believers on Jesus,
but among the rest of mankind—that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing
that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed
to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied
literature—not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the
Hebrews—as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him,[1123] had
read Plato, and being pleased with the opinion he expressed regarding
rich men, to the effect that “it was impossible to be distinguished for
goodness and riches at the same time,” had perverted this, and changed
it into, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!” Now, if Celsus
had not perused the Gospels in a spirit of hatred and dislike, but had
been imbued with a love of truth, he would have turned his attention to
the point why a camel—that one of animals which, as regards its physical
structure, is crooked—was chosen as an object of comparison with a rich
man, and what signification the “narrow eye of a needle” had for him who
saw that “strait and narrow was the way that leadeth unto life;”[1124]
and to this point also, that this animal, according to the law, is
described as “unclean,” having one element of acceptability, viz. that
it ruminates, but one of condemnation, viz. that it does not divide the
hoof. He would have inquired, moreover, how often the camel was adduced
as an object of comparison in the sacred Scriptures, and in reference to
what objects, that he might thus ascertain the meaning of the Logos
concerning the rich men. Nor would he have left without examination the
fact that “the poor” are termed “blessed” by Jesus, while “the rich” are
designated as “miserable;” and whether these words refer to the rich and
poor who are visible to the senses, or whether there is any kind of
poverty known to the Logos which is to be deemed “altogether blessed,”
and any rich man who is to be wholly condemned. For even a common
individual would not thus indiscriminately have praised the poor, many
of whom lead most wicked lives. But on this point we have said enough.
Footnote 1121:
Cf. Matt. xix. 24.
Footnote 1122:
Cf. Plato, v. _de Legibus_.
Footnote 1123:
Cf. Matt. xiii. 54, Mark vi. 2, and John vii. 15.
Footnote 1124:
Cf. Matt. vii. 14.
Chapter XVII.
Since Celsus, moreover, from a desire to depreciate the accounts which
our Scriptures give of the kingdom of God, has quoted none of them, as
if they were unworthy of being recorded by him (or perhaps because he
was unacquainted with them), while, on the other hand, he quotes the
sayings of Plato, both from his _Epistles_ and the _Phœdrus_, as if
these were divinely inspired, but our Scriptures were not, let us set
forth a few points, for the sake of comparison with these plausible
declarations of Plato, which did not, however, dispose the philosopher
to worship in a manner worthy of him the Maker of all things. For he
ought not to have adulterated or polluted this worship with what we call
“idolatry,” but what the many would describe by the term “superstition.”
Now, according to a Hebrew figure of speech, it is said of God in the
eighteenth Psalm, that “He made darkness His secret place,”[1125] to
signify that those notions which should be worthily entertained of God
are invisible and unknowable, because God conceals Himself in darkness,
as it were, from those who cannot endure the splendours of His
knowledge, or are incapable of looking at them, partly owing to the
pollution of their understanding, which is clothed with the body of
mortal lowliness, and partly owing to its feebler power of comprehending
God. And in order that it may appear that the knowledge of God has
rarely been vouchsafed to men, and has been found in very few
individuals, Moses is related to have entered into the darkness where
God was.[1126] And again, with regard to Moses it is said: “Moses alone
shall come near the Lord, but the rest shall not come nigh.”[1127] And
again, that the prophet may show the depth of the doctrines which relate
to God, and which is unattainable by those who do not possess the
“Spirit which searcheth all things, even the deep things of God,” he
added: “The abyss like a garment is His covering.”[1128] Nay, our Lord
and Saviour, the Logos of God, manifesting that the greatness of the
knowledge of the Father is appropriately comprehended and known
pre-eminently by Him alone, and in the second place by those whose minds
are enlightened by the Logos Himself and God, declares: “No man knoweth
the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.”[1129] For no one can
worthily know the “uncreated”[1130] and first-born of all created nature
like the Father who begat Him, nor any one the Father like the living
Logos, and His Wisdom and Truth. By sharing in Him who takes away from
the Father what is called “darkness,” which He “made His secret place,”
and “the abyss,” which is called His “covering,” and in this way
unveiling the Father, every one knows the Father who[1131] is capable of
knowing Him.
Footnote 1125:
Cf. Ps. xviii. 11.
Footnote 1126:
Cf. Ex. xx. 21.
Footnote 1127:
Cf. Ex. xxiv. 2.
Footnote 1128:
Cf. Ps. civ. 6.
Footnote 1129:
Cf. Matt. xi. 27.
Footnote 1130:
ἀγένητον. Locus diligenter notandus, ubi filius e creaturarum numero
diserte eximitur, dum ἀγένητος dicitur. At non dissimulandum in unico
Cod. Anglicano secundo legi: τὸν γεννητόν: cf. _Origenianorum_, lib.
ii. quæstio 2, num. 23.—RUÆUS.
Footnote 1131:
ὅτί ποτ’ ἂν χωρῇ γιγνώσκειν. Boherellus proposes ὅστις ποτ’ ἂν χωρῇ,
etc.
Chapter XVIII.
I thought it right to quote these few instances from a much larger
number of passages, in which our sacred writers express their ideas
regarding God, in order to show that, to those who have eyes to behold
the venerable character of Scripture, the sacred writings of the
prophets contain things more worthy of reverence than those sayings of
Plato which Celsus admires. Now the declaration of Plato, quoted by
Celsus, runs as follows: “All things are around the King of all, and all
things exist for his sake, and he is the cause of all good things. With
things of the second rank he is second, and with those of the third rank
he is third. The human soul, accordingly, is eager to learn what these
things are, looking to such things as are kindred to itself, none of
which is perfect. But as regards the King and those things which I
mentioned, there is nothing which resembles them.”[1132] I might have
mentioned, moreover, what is said of those beings which are called
seraphim by the Hebrews, and described in Isaiah,[1133] who cover the
face and feet of God, and of those called cherubim, whom Ezekiel[1134]
has described, and the postures of these, and of the manner in which God
is said to be borne upon the cherubim. But since they are mentioned in a
very mysterious manner, on account of the unworthy and the indecent, who
are unable to enter into the great thoughts and venerable nature of
theology, I have not deemed it becoming to discourse of them in this
treatise.
Footnote 1132:
Cf. Plato, _Epist._ ii. ad Dionys.
Footnote 1133:
Cf. Isa. vi. 2.
Footnote 1134:
Cf. Ezek. i. and x.
Chapter XIX.
Celsus in the next place alleges, that “certain Christians, having
misunderstood the words of Plato, loudly boast of a ‘super-celestial’
God, thus ascending beyond the heaven of the Jews.” By these words,
indeed, he does not make it clear whether they also ascend beyond the
_God_ of the Jews, or only beyond the heaven by which they swear. It is
not our purpose at present, however, to speak of those who acknowledge
another god than the one worshipped by the Jews, but to defend
ourselves, and to show that it was impossible for the prophets of the
Jews, whose writings are reckoned among ours, to have borrowed anything
from Plato, because they were older than he. They did not then borrow
from him the declaration, that “all things are around the King of all,
and that all exist on account of him;” for we have learned that nobler
thoughts than these have been uttered by the prophets, by Jesus Himself
and His disciples, who have clearly indicated the meaning of the spirit
that was in them, which was none other than the spirit of Christ. Nor
was the philosopher the first to present to view the “super-celestial”
place; for David long ago brought to view the profundity and multitude
of the thoughts concerning God entertained by those who have ascended
above visible things, when he said in the book of Psalms: “Praise God,
ye heaven of heavens; and ye waters that be above the heavens, let them
praise the name of the Lord.”[1135] I do not, indeed, deny that Plato
learned from certain Hebrews the words quoted from the _Phœdrus_, or
even, as some have recorded, that he quoted them from a perusal of our
prophetic writings, when he said: “No poet here below has ever sung of
the super-celestial place, or ever will sing in a becoming manner,” and
so on. And in the same passage is the following: “For the essence, which
is both colourless and formless, and which cannot be touched, which
really exists, is the pilot of the soul, and is beheld by the
understanding alone; and around it the genus of true knowledge holds
this place.”[1136] Our Paul, moreover, educated by these words, and
longing after things “supra-mundane” and “super-celestial,” and doing
his utmost for their sake to attain them, says in the second Epistle to
the Corinthians: “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment,
worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while
we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are
not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things
which are unseen are eternal.”[1137]
Footnote 1135:
Ps. cxlviii. 4.
Footnote 1136:
Cf. Plato in _Phædro_.
Footnote 1137:
Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18.
Chapter XX.
Now, to those who are capable of understanding him, the apostle
manifestly presents to view “things which are the objects of
perception,” calling them “things seen;” while he terms “unseen,” things
which are the object of the understanding, and cognisable by it alone.
He knows, also, that things “seen” and visible are “temporal,” but that
things cognisable by the mind, and “not seen,” are “eternal;” and
desiring to remain in the contemplation of these, and being assisted by
his earnest longing for them, he deemed all affliction as “light” and as
“nothing,” and during the season of afflictions and troubles was not at
all bowed down by them, but by his contemplation of [divine] things
deemed every calamity a light thing, seeing we also have “a great High
Priest,” who by the greatness of His power and understanding “has passed
through the heavens, even Jesus the Son of God,” who has promised to all
that have truly learned divine things, and have lived lives in harmony
with them, to go before them to the things that are supra-mundane; for
His words are: “That where I go, ye may be also.”[1138] And therefore we
hope, after the troubles and struggles which we suffer here, to reach
the highest heavens,[1139] and receiving, agreeably to the teaching of
Jesus, the fountains of water that spring up unto eternal life, and
being filled with the rivers of knowledge,[1140] shall be united with
those waters that are said to be above the heavens, and which praise His
name. And as many of us[1141] as praise Him shall not be carried about
by the revolution of the heaven, but shall be ever engaged in the
contemplation of the invisible things of God, which are no longer
understood by us through the things which He hath made from the creation
of the world, but seeing, as it was expressed by the true disciple of
Jesus in these words, “then face to face;”[1142] and in these, “When
that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done
away.”[1143]
Footnote 1138:
Cf. John xiv. 3.
Footnote 1139:
πρὸς ἄκροις τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
Footnote 1140:
ποταμοὺς τῶν θεωρήματων.
Footnote 1141:
For ὅσον γε Boherellus proposes ὅσοι γε, which is adopted in the
translation.
Footnote 1142:
Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
Footnote 1143:
Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 10.
Chapter XXI.
The Scriptures which are current in the churches of God do not speak of
“seven” heavens, or of any definite number at all, but they do appear to
teach the existence of “heavens,” whether that means the “spheres” of
those bodies which the Greeks call “planets,” or something more
mysterious. Celsus, too, agreeably to the opinion of Plato,[1144]
asserts that souls can make their way to and from the earth through the
planets; while Moses, our most ancient prophet, says that a divine
vision was presented to the view of our prophet Jacob,[1145]—a ladder
stretching to heaven, and the angels of God ascending and descending
upon it, and the Lord supported[1146] upon its top,—obscurely pointing,
by this matter of the ladder, either to the same truths which Plato had
in view, or to something greater than these. On this subject Philo has
composed a treatise which deserves the thoughtful and intelligent
investigation of all lovers of truth.
Footnote 1144:
Cf. Plato in _Timæo_.
Footnote 1145:
Cf. Gen. xxviii. 12, 13.
Footnote 1146:
ἐπεστηριγμένον.
Chapter XXII.
After this, Celsus, desiring to exhibit his learning in his treatise
against us, quotes also certain Persian mysteries, where he says: “These
things are obscurely hinted at in the accounts of the Persians, and
especially in the mysteries of Mithras, which are celebrated amongst
them. For in the latter there is a representation of the two heavenly
revolutions,—of the movement, viz., of the fixed[1147] stars, and of
that which takes place among the planets, and of the passage of the soul
through these. The representation is of the following nature: There is a
ladder with lofty gates,[1148] and on the top of it an eighth gate. The
first gate consists of lead, the second of tin, the third of copper, the
fourth of iron, the fifth of a mixture of metals,[1149] the sixth of
silver, and the seventh of gold. The first gate they assign to Saturn,
indicating by the ‘lead’ the slowness of this star; the second to Venus,
comparing her to the splendour and softness of tin; the third to
Jupiter, being firm[1150] and solid; the fourth to Mercury, for both
Mercury and iron are fit to endure all things, and are money-making and
laborious;[1151] the fifth to Mars, because, being composed of a mixture
of metals, it is varied and unequal; the sixth, of silver, to the Moon;
the seventh, of gold, to the Sun,—thus imitating the different colours
of the two latter.” He next proceeds to examine the reason of the stars
being arranged in this order, which is symbolized by the names of the
rest of matter.[1152] Musical reasons, moreover, are added or quoted by
the Persian theology; and to these, again, he strives to add a second
explanation, connected also with musical considerations. But it seems to
me, that to quote the language of Celsus upon these matters would be
absurd, and similar to what he himself has done, when, in his
accusations against Christians and Jews, he quoted, most
inappropriately, not only the words of Plato; but, dissatisfied even
with these,[1153] he adduced in addition the mysteries of the Persian
Mithras, and the explanation of them. Now, whatever be the case with
regard to these,—whether the Persians and those who conduct the
mysteries of Mithras give false or true accounts regarding them,—why did
he select these for quotation, rather than some of the other mysteries,
with the explanation of them? For the mysteries of Mithras do not appear
to be more famous among the Greeks than those of Eleusis, or than those
in Egina, where individuals are initiated in the rites of Hecate. But if
he must introduce barbarian mysteries with their explanation, why not
rather those of the Egyptians, which are highly regarded by many,[1154]
or those of the Cappadocians regarding the Comanian Diana, or those of
the Thracians, or even those of the Romans themselves, who initiate the
noblest members of their senate?[1155] But if he deemed it inappropriate
to institute a comparison with any of these, because they furnished no
aid in the way of accusing Jews or Christians, why did it not also
appear to him inappropriate to adduce the instance of the mysteries of
Mithras?
Footnote 1147:
τῆς τε ἀπλανοῦς.
Footnote 1148:
κλίμαξ ὑψίπυλος. Boherellus conjectures ἑπτάπυλος.
Footnote 1149:
κεραστοῦ νομίσματος.
Footnote 1150:
τὴν χαλκοβάτην καὶ στεῤῥάν.
Footnote 1151:
τλήμονα γὰρ ἔργων ἁπάντων, καὶ χρηματιστὴν, καὶ πολύκμητον εἶναι, τόν
τε σίδηρον καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν.
Footnote 1152:
τῆς λοιπῆς ὕλης. For ὕλης, another reading is πύλης.
Footnote 1153:
For ὡς ἐκείνοις ἀρκεῖσθαι, Spencer introduced into his text, οὐδ’
ἐκείνοις ἀρκεῖσθαι, which has been adopted in the translation.
Footnote 1154:
ἐν οἷς πολλοὶ σεμνύνονται.
Footnote 1155:
ἀπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς.
Chapter XXIII.
If one wished to obtain means for a profounder contemplation of the
entrance of souls into divine things, not from the statements of that
very insignificant sect from which he quoted, but from books—partly
those of the Jews, which are read in their synagogues, and adopted by
Christians, and partly from those of Christians alone—let him peruse, at
the end of Ezekiel’s prophecies, the visions beheld by the prophet, in
which gates of different kinds are enumerated,[1156] which obscurely
refer to the different modes in which divine souls enter into a better
world;[1157] and let him peruse also, from the Apocalypse of John, what
is related of the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and of its
foundations and gates.[1158] And if he is capable of finding out also
the road, which is indicated by symbols, of those who will march on to
divine things, let him read the book of Moses entitled Numbers, and let
him seek the help of one who is capable of initiating him into the
meaning of the narratives concerning the encampments of the children of
Israel; viz. of what sort those were which were arranged towards the
east, as was the case with the first; and what those towards the
south-west and south; and what towards the sea; and what the last were,
which were stationed towards the north. For he will see that there is in
the respective places a meaning[1159] not to be lightly treated, nor, as
Celsus imagines, such as calls only for silly and servile listeners: but
he will distinguish in the encampments certain things relating to the
numbers that are enumerated, and which are specially adapted to each
tribe, of which the present does not appear to us to be the proper time
to speak. Let Celsus know, moreover, as well as those who read his book,
that in no part of the genuine and divinely accredited Scriptures are
“seven” heavens mentioned; neither do our prophets, nor the apostles of
Jesus, nor the Son of God Himself, repeat anything which they borrowed
from the Persians or the Cabiri.
Footnote 1156:
Cf. Ezek. xlviii.
Footnote 1157:
ἐπὶ τὰ κρείττονα.
Footnote 1158:
Cf. Apoc. xxi.
Footnote 1159:
θεωρήματα.
Chapter XXIV.
After the instance borrowed from the Mithraic mysteries, Celsus declares
that he who would investigate the Christian mysteries, along with the
aforesaid Persian, will, on comparing the two together, and on unveiling
the rites of the Christians, see in this way the difference between
them. Now, wherever he was able to give the names of the various sects,
he was nothing loth to quote those with which he thought himself
acquainted; but when he ought most of all to have done this, if they
were really known to him, and to have informed us which was the sect
that makes use of the diagram he has drawn, he has not done so. It seems
to me, however, that it is from some statements of a very insignificant
sect called Ophites, which he has misunderstood, that, in my opinion, he
has partly borrowed what he says about the diagram.[1160] Now, as we
have always been animated by a love of learning,[1161] we have fallen in
with this diagram, and we have found in it the representations of men
who, as Paul says, “creep into houses, and lead captive silly women
laden with sins, led away with divers lusts; ever learning, and never
able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”[1162] The diagram was,
however, so destitute of all credibility, that neither these easily
deceived women, nor the most rustic class of men, nor those who were
ready to be led away by any plausible pretender whatever, ever gave
their assent to the diagram. Nor, indeed, have we ever met any
individual, although we have visited many parts of the earth, and have
sought out all those who anywhere made profession of knowledge, that
placed any faith in this diagram.
Footnote 1160:
“Utinam exstaret! Multum enim lucis procul dubio antiquissimorum
Patrum libris, priscæ ecclesiæ temporibus, et quibusdam sacræ
Scripturæ locis, accederet.”—SPENCER.
Footnote 1161:
κατὰ τὸ φιλομαθὲς ἡμῶν.
Footnote 1162:
Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 6, 7.
Chapter XXV.
In this diagram were described ten circles, distinct from each other,
but united by one circle, which was said to be the soul of all things,
and was called “Leviathan.”[1163] This Leviathan, the Jewish Scriptures
say, whatever they mean by the expression, was created by God for a
plaything;[1164] for we find in the Psalms: “In wisdom hast Thou made
all things: the earth is full of Thy creatures; so is this great and
wide sea. There go the ships; small animals with great; there is this
dragon, which Thou hast formed to play therein.”[1165] Instead of the
word “dragon,” the term “leviathan” is in the Hebrew. This impious
diagram, then, said of this leviathan, which is so clearly depreciated
by the psalmist, that it was the soul which had travelled through all
things! We observed, also, in the diagram, the being named “Behemoth,”
placed as it were under the lowest circle. The inventor of this accursed
diagram had inscribed this leviathan at its circumference and centre,
thus placing its name in two separate places. Moreover, Celsus says that
the diagram was “divided by a thick black line, and this line he
asserted was called Gehenna, which is Tartarus.” Now as we found that
Gehenna was mentioned in the Gospel as a place of punishment, we
searched to see whether it is mentioned anywhere in the ancient
Scriptures, and especially because the Jews too use the word. And we
ascertained that where the valley of the son of Ennom was named in
Scripture in the Hebrew, instead of “valley,” with fundamentally the
same meaning, it was termed both the valley of Ennom and also Geenna.
And continuing our researches, we find that what was termed “Geenna,” or
“the valley of Ennom,” was included in the lot of the tribe of Benjamin,
in which Jerusalem also was situated. And seeking to ascertain what
might be the inference from the heavenly Jerusalem belonging to the lot
of Benjamin and the valley of Ennom, we find a certain confirmation of
what is said regarding the place of punishment, intended for the
purification of such souls as are to be purified by torments, agreeably
to the saying: “The Lord cometh like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s
soap: and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver and of
gold.”[1166]
Footnote 1163:
Cf. note in Spencer’s ed.
Footnote 1164:
παίγνιον.
Footnote 1165:
Cf. Ps. civ. 24-26.
Footnote 1166:
Cf. Mal. iii. 2, 3.
Chapter XXVI.
It is in the precincts of Jerusalem, then, that punishments will be
inflicted upon those who undergo the process of purification,[1167] who
have received into the substance of their soul the elements of
wickedness, which in a certain place[1168] is figuratively termed
“lead,” and on that account iniquity is represented in Zechariah as
sitting upon a “talent of lead.”[1169] But the remarks which might be
made on this topic are neither to be made to all, nor to be uttered on
the present occasion; for it is not unattended with danger to commit to
writing the explanation of such subjects, seeing the multitude need no
further instruction than that which relates to the punishment of
sinners; while to ascend beyond this is not expedient, for the sake of
those who are with difficulty restrained, even by fear of eternal
punishment, from plunging into any degree of wickedness, and into the
flood of evils which result from sin. The doctrine of Geenna, then, is
unknown both to the Diagram and to Celsus: for had it been otherwise,
the framers of the former would not have boasted of their pictures of
animals and diagrams, as if the truth were represented by these; nor
would Celsus, in his treatise against the Christians, have introduced
among the charges directed against them statements which they never
uttered, instead of what was spoken by some who perhaps are no longer in
existence, but have altogether disappeared, or been reduced to a very
few individuals, and these easily counted. And as it does not beseem
those who profess the doctrines of Plato to offer a defence of Epicurus
and his impious opinions, so neither is it for us to defend the diagram,
or to refute the accusations brought against it by Celsus. We may
therefore allow his charges on these points to pass as superfluous and
useless,[1170] for we would censure more severely than Celsus any who
should be carried away by such opinions.
Footnote 1167:
χωνευομένων.
Footnote 1168:
ποῦ.
Footnote 1169:
Cf. Zech. v. 7.
Footnote 1170:
μάτην ἐκκείμενα.
Chapter XXVII.
After the matter of the Diagram, he brings forward certain monstrous
statements, in the form of question and answer,[1171] regarding what is
called by ecclesiastical writers the “seal,” statements which did not
arise from imperfect information; such as that “he who impresses the
seal is called father, and he who is sealed is called young man and
son;” and who answers, “I have been anointed with white ointment from
the tree of life,”—things which we never heard to have occurred even
among the heretics. In the next place, he determines even the number
mentioned by those who deliver over the seal, as that “of _seven_
angels, who attach themselves to both sides of the soul of the dying
body; the one party being named angels of light, the others
‘archontics;’”[1172] and he asserts that the “ruler of those named
‘archontics’ is termed the ‘accursed’ God.” Then, laying hold of the
expression, he assails, not without reason, those who venture to use
such language; and on that account we entertain a similar feeling of
indignation with those who censure such individuals, if indeed there
exist any who call the God of the Jews—who sends rain and thunder, and
who is the Creator of this world, and the God of Moses, and of the
cosmogony which he records—an “accursed” divinity. Celsus, however,
appears to have had in view, in employing these expressions, not a
_rational_[1173] object, but one of a most irrational kind, arising out
of his hatred towards us, which is so unlike a philosopher. For his aim
was, that those who are unacquainted with our customs should, on
perusing his treatise, at once assail us as if we called the noble
Creator of this world an “accursed divinity.” He appears to me, indeed,
to have acted like those Jews who, when Christianity began to be first
preached, scattered abroad false reports of the gospel, such as that
“Christians offered up an infant in sacrifice, and partook of its
flesh;” and again, “that the professors of Christianity, wishing to do
the ‘works of darkness,’ used to extinguish the lights [in their
meetings], and each one to have sexual intercourse with any woman whom
he chanced to meet.” These calumnies have long exercised, although
unreasonably, an influence over the minds of very many, leading those
who are aliens to the gospel to believe that Christians are men of such
a character; and even at the present day they mislead some, and prevent
them from entering even into the simple intercourse of conversation with
those who are Christians.
Footnote 1171:
ἀλλόκοτα καὶ ἀμοιβαίας φωνάς.
Footnote 1172:
ἀρχοντικῶν.
Footnote 1173:
οὐκ εὔγνωμον ἀλλά ... πάνυ ἀγνωμονέστατον.
Chapter XXVIII.
With some such object as this in view does Celsus seem to have been
actuated, when he alleged that Christians term the Creator an “accursed
divinity;” in order that he who believes these charges of his against
us, should, if possible, arise and exterminate the Christians as the
most impious of mankind. Confusing, moreover, things that are
distinct,[1174] he states also the reason why the God of the Mosaic
cosmogony is termed “accursed,” asserting that “such is his character,
and worthy of execration in the opinion of those who so regard him,
inasmuch as he pronounced a curse upon the serpent, who introduced the
first human beings to the knowledge of good and evil.” Now he ought to
have known that those who have espoused the cause of the serpent,
because he gave good advice to the first human beings, and who go far
beyond the Titans and Giants of fable, and are on this account called
Ophites, are so far from being Christians, that they bring accusations
against Jesus to as great a degree as Celsus himself; and they do not
admit any one into their assembly[1175] until he has uttered
maledictions against Jesus. See, then, how irrational is the procedure
of Celsus, who, in his discourse against the Christians, represents as
such those who will not even listen to the _name_ of Jesus, or admit
even that He was a wise man, or a person of virtuous[1176] character!
What, then, could evince greater folly or madness, not only on the part
of those who wish to derive their name from the serpent as the author of
good,[1177] but also on the part of Celsus, who thinks that the
accusations with which the Ophites[1178] are charged, are chargeable
also against the Christians! Long ago, indeed, that Greek philosopher
who preferred a state of poverty,[1179] and who exhibited the pattern of
a happy life, showing that he was not excluded from happiness although
he was possessed of nothing,[1180] termed himself a Cynic; while these
impious wretches, as not being human beings, whose enemy the serpent is,
but as being serpents, pride themselves upon being called Ophites from
the serpent, which is an animal most hostile to and greatly dreaded by
man, and boast of one Euphrates[1181] as the introducer of these
unhallowed opinions.
Footnote 1174:
φύρων δὲ τὰ πράγματα.
Footnote 1175:
συνέδριον.
Footnote 1176:
μέτριος τὰ ἤθη.
Footnote 1177:
ἀρχηγοῦ τῶν καλῶν.
Footnote 1178:
Ὀφιᾶνοι; cf. Irenæus, vol. i. pp. 104-112 (_Ante-Nicene Library_).
Footnote 1179:
τὴν εὐτέλειαν ἀγαπήσας.
Footnote 1180:
ἀπὸ τῆς παντελοῦς ἀκτημοσύνης.
Footnote 1181:
“Euphraten hujus hæresis auctorem solus Origenes tradit.”—SPENCER; cf.
note in Spencer’s ed.
Chapter XXIX.
In the next place, as if it were the Christians whom he was
calumniating, he continues his accusations against those who termed the
God of Moses and of his law an “accursed” divinity; and imagining that
it is the Christians who so speak, he expresses himself thus: “What
could be more foolish or insane than such senseless[1182] wisdom? For
what blunder has the Jewish lawgiver committed? and why do you accept,
by means, as you say,[1183] of a certain allegorical and typical method
of interpretation, the cosmogony which he gives, and the law of the
Jews, while it is with unwillingness, O most impious man, that you give
praise to the Creator of the world, who promised to give them all
things; who promised to multiply their race to the ends of the earth,
and to raise them up from the dead with the same flesh and blood, and
who gave inspiration[1184] to their prophets; and, again, you slander
Him! When you feel the force of such considerations, indeed, you
acknowledge that you worship the same God; but when your teacher Jesus
and the Jewish Moses give contradictory decisions,[1185] you seek
another God, instead of Him, and the Father!” Now, by such statements,
this illustrious philosopher Celsus distinctly slanders the Christians,
asserting that, when the Jews press them hard, they acknowledge the same
God as they do; but that when Jesus legislates differently from Moses,
they seek another god instead of Him. Now, whether we are conversing
with the Jews, or are alone with ourselves, we know of only one and the
same God, whom the Jews also worshipped of old time, and still profess
to worship as God, and we are guilty of no impiety towards Him. We do
_not_ assert, however, that God will raise men from the dead with the
same flesh and blood, as has been shown in the preceding pages; for we
do not maintain that the natural[1186] body, which is sown in
corruption, and in dishonour, and in weakness, will rise again such as
it was sown. On such subjects, however, we have spoken at adequate
length in the foregoing pages.
Footnote 1182:
ἀναισθήτου.
Footnote 1183:
Boherellus proposes φῇς for the textual reading φησι.
Footnote 1184:
καὶ τοῖς προφήταις ἐμπνέοντα.
Footnote 1185:
ὅταν δὲ τὰ ἐναντία ὁ σὸς διδάσκαλος Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ὁ Ἰουδαίων Μωϋσῆς,
νομοθετῆ.
Footnote 1186:
ψυχικόν.
Chapter XXX.
He next returns to the subject of the Seven ruling Demons,[1187] whose
names are not found among Christians, but who, I think, are accepted by
the Ophites. We found, indeed, that in the Diagram, which on their
account we procured a sight of, the same order was laid down as that
which Celsus has given. Celsus says that “the goat was shaped like a
lion,” not mentioning the name given him by those who are truly the most
impious of individuals; whereas _we_ discovered that He who is honoured
in Holy Scripture as the angel of the Creator is called by this accursed
Diagram Michael the Lion-like. Again, Celsus says that the “second in
order is a bull;” whereas the Diagram which we possessed made him to be
Suriel, the bull-like. Further, Celsus termed the third “an amphibious
sort of animal, and one that hissed frightfully;” while the Diagram
described the third as Raphael, the serpent-like. Moreover, Celsus
asserted that the “fourth had the form of an eagle;” the Diagram
representing him as Gabriel, the eagle-like. Again, the “fifth,”
according to Celsus, “had the countenance of a bear;” and this,
according to the Diagram, was Thauthabaoth,[1188] the bear-like. Celsus
continues his account, that the “sixth was described as having the face
of a dog;” and him the Diagram called Erataoth. The “seventh,” he adds,
“had the countenance of an ass, and was named Thaphabaoth or Onoel;”
whereas we discovered that in the Diagram he is called Onoel, or
Thartharaoth, being somewhat asinine in appearance. We have thought it
proper to be exact in stating these matters, that we might not appear to
be ignorant of those things which Celsus professed to know, but that we
Christians, knowing them better than he, may demonstrate that these are
not the words of Christians, but of those who are altogether alienated
from salvation, and who neither acknowledge Jesus as Saviour, nor God,
nor teacher, nor Son of God.
Footnote 1187:
Cf. Spencer’s note, as quoted in Benedictine ed.
Footnote 1188:
“Nescio, an hæresium Scriptores hujus Thauthabaoth, Erataoth,
Thaphabaoth, Onoeles, et Thartharaoth, usquam meminerint. Hujus
generis vocabula innumera invenies apud Epiphan. _Hær._ 31, quæ est
Valentinianorum, pp. 165-171.”—SPENCER.
Chapter XXXI.
Moreover, if any one would wish to become acquainted with the artifices
of those sorcerers, through which they desire to lead men away by their
teaching (as if they possessed the knowledge of certain secret rites),
but are not at all successful in so doing, let him listen to the
instruction which they receive after passing through what is termed the
“fence of wickedness,”[1189]—gates which are subjected to the world of
ruling spirits.[1190] [The following, then, is the manner in which they
proceed]: “I salute the one-formed[1191] king, the bond of blindness,
complete[1192] oblivion, the first power, preserved by the spirit of
providence and by wisdom, from whom I am sent forth pure, being already
part of the light of the son and of the father: grace be with me; yea, O
father, let it be with me.” They say also that the beginnings of the
Ogdoad[1193] are derived from this. In the next place, they are taught
to say as follows, while passing through what they call Ialdabaoth:
“Thou, O first and seventh, who art born to command with confidence,
thou, O Ialdabaoth, who art the rational ruler of a pure mind, and a
perfect work to son and father, bearing the symbol of life in the
character of a type, and opening to the world the gate which thou didst
close against thy kingdom, I pass again in freedom through thy realm.
Let grace be with me; yea, O father, let it be with me.” They say,
moreover, that the star Phænon[1194] is in sympathy[1195] with the
lion-like ruler. They next imagine that he who has passed through
Ialdabaoth and arrived at Iao ought thus to speak: “Thou, O second Iao,
who shinest by night,[1196] who art the ruler of the secret mysteries of
son and father, first prince of death, and portion of the innocent,
bearing now mine own beard as symbol, I am ready to pass through thy
realm, having strengthened him who is born of thee by the living word.
Grace be with me; father, let it be with me.” They next come to Sabaoth,
to whom they think the following should be addressed: “O governor of the
fifth realm, powerful Sabaoth, defender of the law of thy creatures, who
are liberated by thy grace through the help of a more powerful
Pentad,[1197] admit me, seeing the faultless symbol of their art,
preserved by the stamp of an image, a body liberated by a Pentad. Let
grace be with me, O father, let grace be with me.” And after Sabaoth
they come to Astaphæus, to whom they believe the following prayer should
be offered: “O Astaphæus, ruler of the third gate, overseer of the first
principle of water, look upon me as one of thine initiated,[1198] admit
me who am purified with the spirit of a virgin, thou who seest the
essence of the world. Let grace be with me, O father, let grace be with
me.” After him comes Aloæus, who is to be thus addressed: “O Aloæus,
governor of the second gate, let me pass, seeing I bring to thee the
symbol of thy mother, a grace which is hidden by the powers of the
realms.[1199] Let grace be with me, O father, let it be with me.” And
last of all they name Horæus, and think that the following prayer ought
to be offered to him: “Thou who didst fearlessly overleap the rampart of
fire, O Horæus, who didst obtain the government of the first gate, let
me pass, seeing thou beholdest the symbol of thine own power,
sculptured[1200] on the figure of the tree of life, and formed after
this image, in the likeness of innocence. Let grace be with me, O
father, let grace be with me.”
Footnote 1189:
φραγμὸν κακίας.
Footnote 1190:
πύλας ἀρχόντων αἰῶνι δεδεμένας.
Footnote 1191:
μονότροπον.
Footnote 1192:
λήθην ἀπερίσκεπτον.
Footnote 1193:
Ὀγδοάδος. Cf. Tertullian, _de præscript. adv. Hæreticos_, c. 33
(_Ante-Nicene Library_; Writings of Tertullian, vol. ii. p. 39), and
other references in Benedictine ed.
Footnote 1194:
Φαίνων. “Ea, quæ Saturni stella dicitur, Φαίνων a Græcis
dicitur.”—CICERO, _de Nat. Deorum_, book ii.
Footnote 1195:
συμπαθεῖν.
Footnote 1196:
νυκτοφαής.
Footnote 1197:
πεντάδι δυνατωτέρᾳ.
Footnote 1198:
μύστην.
Footnote 1199:
χάριν κρυπτομένην δυνάμεσιν ἐξουσιῶν.
Footnote 1200:
For καταλυθέν Boherellus conjectures καταγλυφθέν, which has been
adopted in the translation.
Chapter XXXII.
The supposed great learning of Celsus, which is composed, however,
rather of curious trifles and silly talk than anything else, has made us
touch upon these topics, from a wish to show to every one who peruses
his treatise and our reply, that we have no lack of information on those
subjects, from which he takes occasion to calumniate the Christians, who
neither are acquainted with, nor concern themselves about, such matters.
For we, too, desired both to learn and set forth these things, in order
that sorcerers might not, under pretext of knowing more than we, delude
those who are easily carried away by the glitter[1201] of names. And I
could have given many more illustrations to show that we are acquainted
with the opinions of these deluders,[1202] and that we disown them, as
being alien to ours, and impious, and not in harmony with the doctrines
of true Christians, of which we are ready to make confession even to the
death. It must be noticed, too, that those who have drawn up this array
of fictions, have, from neither understanding magic, nor discriminating
the meaning of Holy Scripture, thrown everything into confusion; seeing
that they have borrowed from magic the names of Ialdabaoth, and
Astaphæus, and Horæus, and from the Hebrew Scriptures him who is termed
in Hebrew Iao or Jah, and Sabaoth, and Adonæus, and Eloæus. Now the
names taken from the Scriptures are names of one and the same God;
which, not being understood by the enemies of God, as even themselves
acknowledge, led to their imagining that Iao was a different God, and
Sabaoth another, and Adonæus, whom the Scriptures term Adonai, a third
besides, and that Eloæus, whom the prophets name in Hebrew Eloi, was
also different.
Footnote 1201:
φαντασίας.
Footnote 1202:
ἀπατεώνων.
Chapter XXXIII.
Celsus next relates other fables, to the effect that “certain persons
return to the shapes of the archontics,[1203] so that some are called
lions, others bulls, others dragons, or eagles, or bears, or dogs.” We
found also in the Diagram which we possessed, and which Celsus called
the “square pattern,” the statements[1204] made by these unhappy beings
concerning the gates of Paradise. The flaming sword was depicted as the
diameter of a flaming circle, and as if mounting guard over the tree of
knowledge and of life. Celsus, however, either would not or could not
repeat the harangues which, according to the fables of these impious
individuals, are represented as spoken at each of the gates by those who
pass through them; but this we have done in order to show to Celsus and
those who read his treatise, that we know the depth of these unhallowed
mysteries,[1205] and that they are far removed from the worship which
Christians offer up to God.
Footnote 1203:
εἰς τὰς ἀρχοντικὰς μορφάς.
Footnote 1204:
Guietus thinks that some word has been omitted here, as ξίφος, which
seems very probable.
Footnote 1205:
τὸ τῆς ἀτελέστου τελετῆς πέρας.
Chapter XXXIV.
After finishing the foregoing, and those analogous matters which we
ourselves have added, Celsus continues as follows: “They continue to
heap together one thing after another,—discourses of prophets, and
circles upon circles, and effluents[1206] from an earthly church, and
from circumcision; and a power flowing from one Prunicos, a virgin and a
living soul; and a heaven slain in order to live, and an earth
slaughtered by the sword, and many put to death that they may live, and
death ceasing in the world, when the sin of the world is dead; and,
again, a narrow way, and gates that open spontaneously. And in all their
writings [is mention made] of the tree of life, and a resurrection of
the flesh by means[1207] of the ‘tree,’ because, I imagine, their
teacher was nailed to a cross, and was a carpenter by trade; so that if
he had chanced to have been cast from a precipice, or thrust into a pit,
or suffocated by hanging, or had been a leather-cutter, or stone-cutter,
or worker in iron, there would have been [invented] a precipice of life
beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality,
or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a sacred leather! Now what
old woman would not be ashamed to utter such things in a whisper, even
when making stories to lull an infant to sleep?” In using such language
as this, Celsus appears to me to confuse together matters which he has
imperfectly heard. For it seems likely that, even supposing that he had
heard a few words traceable to some existing heresy, he did not clearly
understand the meaning intended to be conveyed; but heaping the words
together, he wished to show before those who knew nothing either of our
opinions or of those of the heretics, that he was acquainted with all
the doctrines of the Christians. And this is evident also from the
foregoing words.
Footnote 1206:
ἀποῤῥοίας.
Footnote 1207:
ἀπὸ ξύλου.
Chapter XXXV.
It is our practice, indeed, to make use of the words of the prophets,
who demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ predicted by them, and who show
from the prophetic writings that the events in the Gospels regarding
Jesus have been fulfilled. But when Celsus speaks of “circles upon
circles,” [he perhaps borrowed the expression] from the aforementioned
heresy, which includes in one circle (which they call the soul of all
things, and Leviathan) the seven circles of archontic demons, or perhaps
it arises from misunderstanding the preacher, when he says: “The wind
goeth in a circle of circles, and returneth again upon its
circles.”[1208] The expression, too, “effluents of an earthly church and
of circumcision,” was probably taken from the fact that the church on
earth was called by some an effluent from a heavenly church and a better
world; and that the circumcision described in the law was a symbol of
the circumcision performed there, in a certain place set apart for
purification. The adherents of Valentinus, moreover, in keeping with
their system of error,[1209] give the name of Prunicos to a certain kind
of wisdom, of which they would have the woman afflicted with the twelve
years’ issue of blood to be the symbol; so that Celsus, who confuses
together all sorts of opinions—Greek, Barbarian, and Heretical—having
heard of her, asserted that it was a power flowing forth from one
Prunicos, a virgin. The “living soul,” again, is perhaps mysteriously
referred by some of the followers of Valentinus to the being whom they
term the psychic[1210] creator of the world; or perhaps, in
contradistinction to a “dead” soul, the “living” soul is termed by some,
not inelegantly,[1211] the soul of “him who is saved.” I know nothing,
however, of a “heaven which is said to be slain,” or of an “earth
slaughtered by the sword,” or of many persons slain in order that they
might live; for it is not unlikely that these were coined by Celsus out
of his own brain.
Footnote 1208:
Eccles. i. 6 (literally rendered).
Footnote 1209:
κατὰ τὴν πεπλανημένην ἑαυτῶν σοφίαν.
Footnote 1210:
ψυχικὸν δημιουργόν.
Footnote 1211:
οὐκ ἀγεννῶς.
Chapter XXXVI.
We would say, moreover, that death ceases in the world when the sin of
the world dies, referring the saying to the mystical words of the
apostle, which run as follows: “When He shall have put all enemies under
His feet, then the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”[1212]
And also: “When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, then
shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed
up in victory.”[1213] The “strait descent,”[1214] again, may perhaps be
referred by those who hold the doctrine of transmigration of souls to
that view of things. And it is not incredible that the gates which are
said to open spontaneously are referred obscurely by some to the words,
“Open to me the gates of righteousness, that I may go into them, and
praise the Lord; this gate of the Lord, into it the righteous shall
enter;”[1215] and again, to what is said in the ninth psalm, “Thou that
liftest me up from the gates of death, that I may show forth all Thy
praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion.”[1216] The Scripture
further gives the name of “gates of death” to those sins which lead to
destruction, as it terms, on the contrary, good actions the “gates of
Zion.” So also “the gates of righteousness,” which is an equivalent
expression to “the gates of virtue,” and these are ready to be opened to
him who follows after virtuous pursuits. The subject of the “tree of
life” will be more appropriately explained when we interpret the
statements in the book of Genesis regarding the paradise planted by God.
Celsus, moreover, has often mocked at the subject of a resurrection,—a
doctrine which he did not comprehend; and on the present occasion, not
satisfied with what he has formerly said, he adds, “And there is said to
be a resurrection of the flesh by means of the tree;” not understanding,
I think, the symbolical expression, that “through the tree came death,
and through the tree comes life,”[1217] because death was in Adam, and
life in Christ. He next scoffs at the “tree,” assailing it on two
grounds, and saying, “For this reason is the tree introduced, either
because our teacher was nailed to a cross, or because he was a carpenter
by trade;” not observing that the tree of life is mentioned in the
Mosaic writings, and being blind also to this, that in none of the
Gospels current in the churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being
a carpenter.[1218]
Footnote 1212:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 25, 26.
Footnote 1213:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 54; cf. Hos. xiii. 14.
Footnote 1214:
κάθοδον στενήν.
Footnote 1215:
Cf. Ps. cxviii. 19, 20.
Footnote 1216:
Cf. Ps. ix. 13, 14.
Footnote 1217:
Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 22.
Footnote 1218:
Cf., however, Mark vi. 3.
Chapter XXXVII.
Celsus, moreover, thinks that we have invented this “tree of life” to
give an allegorical meaning to the cross; and in consequence of his
error upon this point, he adds: “If he had happened to be cast down a
precipice, or shoved into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would
have been invented a precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit
of resurrection, or a cord of immortality.” And again: “If the ‘tree of
life’ were an invention, because he (Jesus) [is reported] to have been a
carpenter, it would follow that if he had been a leather-cutter,
something would have been said about holy leather; or had he been a
stone-cutter, about a blessed stone; or if a worker in iron, about an
iron of love.” Now, who does not see at once[1219] the paltry nature of
his charge, in thus calumniating men whom he professed to convert on the
ground of their being deceived? And after these remarks, he goes on to
speak in a way quite in harmony with the tone of those who have invented
the fictions of lion-like, and ass-headed, and serpent-like ruling
angels,[1220] and other similar absurdities, but which does not affect
those who belong to the church. Of a truth, even a drunken old woman
would be ashamed to chaunt or whisper to an infant, in order to lull him
to sleep, any such fables as those have done who invented the beings
with asses’ heads, and the harangues, so to speak, which are delivered
at each of the gates. But Celsus is not acquainted with the doctrines of
the members of the church, which very few have been able to comprehend,
even of those who have devoted all their lives, in conformity with the
command of Jesus, to the searching of the Scriptures, and have laboured
to investigate the meaning of the sacred books, to a greater degree than
Greek philosophers in their efforts to attain a so-called wisdom.
Footnote 1219:
αὐτόθεν.
Footnote 1220:
ἄρχοντας.
Chapter XXXVIII.
Our noble [friend], moreover, not satisfied with the objections which he
has drawn from the Diagram, desires, in order to strengthen his
accusations against us, who have nothing in common with it, to introduce
certain other charges, which he adduces from the same [heretics], but
yet as if they were from a different source. His words are: “And that is
not the least of their marvels, for there are between the upper
circles—those that are above the heavens—certain inscriptions of which
they give the interpretation, and among others two words especially, ‘a
greater and a less,’ which they refer to Father and Son.”[1221] Now, in
the Diagram referred to, we found the greater and the lesser circle,
upon the diameter of which was inscribed “Father and Son;” and between
the greater circle (in which the lesser was contained) and another[1222]
composed of two circles,—the outer one of which was yellow, and the
inner blue,—a barrier inscribed in the shape of a hatchet. And above it,
a short circle, close to the greater of the two former, having the
inscription “Love;” and lower down, one touching the same circle, with
the word “Life.” And on the second circle, which was intertwined with
and included two other circles, another figure, like a rhomboid,
[entitled] “The foresight of wisdom.” And within their point of common
section was “The nature of wisdom.” And above their point of common
section was a circle, on which was inscribed “Knowledge;” and lower down
another, on which was the inscription, “Understanding.” We have
introduced these matters into our reply to Celsus, to show to our
readers that we know better than he, and not by mere report, those
things, even although we also disapprove of them. Moreover, if those who
pride themselves upon such matters profess also a kind of magic and
sorcery,—which, in their opinion, is the summit of wisdom,—we, on the
other hand, make no affirmation about it, seeing we never have
discovered anything of the kind. Let Celsus, however, who has been
already often convicted of false witness and irrational accusations, see
whether he is not guilty of falsehood in these also, or whether he has
not extracted and introduced into his treatise, statements taken from
the writings of those who are foreigners and strangers to our Christian
faith.
Footnote 1221:
ἄλλα τε, καὶ δύο ἄττα, μεῖζον τε καὶ μικρότερον υἱοῦ καὶ πατρός.
Footnote 1222:
For ἄλλους, the textual reading, Gelenius, with the approval of
Boherellus, proposes καὶ ἄλλου συγκειμένου, which has been followed in
the translation.
Chapter XXXIX.