sorcery, and who invoke the barbarous names of demons, he remarks that
such persons act like those who, in reference to the same things,[1223]
perform marvels before those who are ignorant that the names of demons
among the Greeks are different from what they are among the Scythians.
He then quotes a passage from Herodotus, stating that “Apollo is called
Gongosyrus by the Scythians; Poseidon, Thagimasada; Aphrodite,
Argimpasan; Hestia, Tabiti.”[1224] Now, he who has the capacity can
inquire whether in these matters Celsus and Herodotus are not both
wrong; for the Scythians do not understand the same thing as the Greeks,
in what relates to those beings which are deemed to be gods. For how is
it credible[1225] that Apollo should be called Gongosyrus by the
Scythians? I do not suppose that Gongosyrus, when transferred into the
Greek language, yields the same etymology as Apollo; or that Apollo, in
the dialect of the Scythians, has the signification of Gongosyrus. Nor
has any such assertion hitherto been made regarding the other
names,[1226] for the Greeks took occasion from different circumstances
and etymologies to give to those who are by them deemed gods the names
which they bear; and the Scythians, again, from another set of
circumstances; and the same also was the case with the Persians, or
Indians, or Ethiopians, or Libyans, or with those who delight to bestow
names [from fancy], and who do not abide by the just and pure idea of
the Creator of all things. Enough, however, has been said by us in the
preceding pages, where we wished to demonstrate that Sabaoth and Zeus
were not the same deity, and where also we made some remarks, derived
from the Holy Scriptures, regarding the different dialects. We
willingly, then, pass by these points, on which Celsus would make us
repeat ourselves. In the next place, again, mixing up together matters
which belong to magic and sorcery, and referring them perhaps to no
one,—because of the non-existence of any who practise magic under
pretence of a worship of this character,—and yet, perhaps, having in
view some who _do_ employ such practices in the presence of the simple
(that they may have the appearance of acting by divine power), he adds:
“What need to number up all those who have taught methods of
purification, or expiatory hymns, or spells for averting evil, or [the
making of] images, or resemblances of demons, or the various sorts of
antidotes against poison [to be found][1227] in clothes, or in numbers,
or stones, or plants, or roots, or generally in all kinds of things?” In
respect to these matters, reason does not require us to offer any
defence, since we are not liable in the slightest degree to suspicions
of such a nature.
Footnote 1223:
ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὑποκειμένοις.
Footnote 1224:
Cf. Herodot. iv. 9.
Footnote 1225:
ποία γὰρ πιθανότης.
Footnote 1226:
For the textual reading, οὔπω δὲ οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ταὐτόν τι ἐρεῖ,
Boherellus conjectures εἴρηται, which has been adopted in the
translation.
Footnote 1227:
For αἰσθητῶν, Lommatzsch adopts the conjecture of Boherellus, approved
by Ruæus, ἐσθήτων.
Chapter XL.
After these things, Celsus appears to me to act like those who, in their
intense hatred of the Christians, maintain, in the presence of those who
are utterly ignorant of the Christian faith, that they have actually
ascertained that Christians devour the flesh of infants, and give
themselves without restraint to sexual intercourse with their women.
Now, as these statements have been condemned as falsehoods invented
against the Christians, and this admission made by the multitude and
those altogether aliens to our faith; so would the following statements
of Celsus be found to be calumnies invented against the Christians,
where he says that “he has seen in the hands of certain presbyters
belonging to our faith[1228] barbarous books, containing the names and
marvellous doings of demons;” asserting further, that “these presbyters
of our faith professed to do no good, but all that was calculated to
injure human beings.” Would, indeed, that all that is said by Celsus
against the Christians was of such a nature as to be refuted by the
multitude, who have ascertained by experience that such things are
untrue, seeing that most of them have lived as neighbours with the
Christians, and have not even heard of the existence of any such alleged
practices!
Footnote 1228:
δόξης.
Chapter XLI.
In the next place, as if he had forgotten that it was his object to
write against the Christians, he says that, “having become acquainted
with one Dionysius, an Egyptian musician, the latter told him, with
respect to magic arts, that it was only over the uneducated and men of
corrupt morals that they had any power, while on philosophers they were
unable to produce any effect, because they were careful to observe a
healthy manner of life.” If, now, it had been our purpose to treat of
magic, we could have added a few remarks in addition to what we have
already said on this topic; but since it is only the more important
matters which we have to notice in answer to Celsus, we shall say of
magic, that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were
ever led captive by it or not, can read what has been written by
Moiragenes regarding the memoirs of the magician and philosopher
Apollonius of Tyana, in which this individual, who is not a Christian,
but a philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were
won over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him
as a sorcerer; and among these, I think, he especially mentioned
Euphrates and a certain Epicurean. Now _we_, on the other hand, affirm,
and have learned by experience, that they who worship the God of all
things in conformity with the Christianity which comes by Jesus, and who
live according to His gospel, using night and day, continuously and
becomingly, the prescribed prayers, are not carried away either by magic
or demons. For verily “the angel of the Lord encamps round about them
that fear Him, and delivereth them”[1229] from all evil; and the angels
of the little ones in the church, who are appointed to watch over them,
are said always to behold the face of their Father who is in
heaven,[1230] whatever be the meaning of “face” or of “behold.”
Footnote 1229:
Cf. Ps. xxxiv. 7.
Footnote 1230:
Cf. Matt. xviii. 10.
Chapter XLII.
After these matters, Celsus brings the following charges against us from
another quarter: “Certain most impious errors,” he says, “are committed
by them, due to their extreme ignorance, in which they have wandered
away from the meaning of the divine enigmas, creating an adversary to
God, the devil, and naming him in the Hebrew tongue, Satan. Now, of a
truth, such statements are altogether of mortal invention,[1231] and not
even proper to be repeated, viz. that the mighty God, in His desire to
confer good upon men, has yet one counterworking Him, and is helpless.
The Son of God, it follows, is vanquished by the devil; and being
punished by him, teaches us also to despise the punishments which he
inflicts, telling us beforehand that Satan, after appearing to men as He
Himself had done, will exhibit great and marvellous works, claiming for
himself the glory of God, but that those who wish to keep him at a
distance ought to pay no attention to these works of Satan, but to place
their faith in Him alone. Such statements are manifestly the words of a
deluder, planning and manœuvring against those who are opposed to his
views, and who rank themselves against them.” In the next place,
desiring to point out the “enigmas,” our mistakes regarding which lead
to the introduction of our views concerning Satan, he continues: “The
ancients allude obscurely to a certain war among the gods, Heraclitus
speaking thus of it: ‘If one must say that there is a general war and
discord, and that all things are done and administered in strife.’
Pherecydes, again, who is much older than Heraclitus, relates a myth of
one army drawn up in hostile array against another, and names Kronos as
the leader of the one, and Ophioneus of the other, and recounts their
challenges and struggles, and mentions that agreements were entered into
between them, to the end that whichever party should fall into the
Ocean[1232] should be held as vanquished, while those who had expelled
and conquered them should have possession of heaven. The mysteries
relating to the Titans and Giants also had some such [symbolical]
meaning, as well as the Egyptian mysteries of Typhon, and Horus, and
Osiris.” After having made such statements, and not having got over the
difficulty[1233] as to the way in which these accounts contain a higher
view of things, while our accounts are erroneous copies of them, he
continues his abuse of us, remarking that “these are not like the
stories which are related of a devil, or demon, or, as he remarks with
more truth, of a man who is an impostor, who wishes to establish an
opposite doctrine.” And in the same way he understands Homer, as if he
referred obscurely to matters similar to those mentioned by Heraclitus,
and Pherecydes, and the originators of the mysteries about the Titans
and Giants, in those words which Hephæstus addresses to Hera, as
follows:
“Once in your cause I felt his matchless might,
Hurled headlong downward from the ethereal height.”[1234]
And in those of Zeus to Hera:
“Hast thou forgot, when bound and fix’d on high
From the vast concave of the spangled sky,
I hung thee trembling on a golden chain,
And all the raging gods opposed in vain?
Headlong I hurled them from the Olympian hall,
Stunn’d in the whirl, and breathless with the fall.”[1235]
Interpreting, moreover, the words of Homer, he adds: “The words of Zeus
addressed to Hera are the words of God addressed to matter; and the
words addressed to matter obscurely signify that the matter which at the
beginning was in a state of discord [with God], was taken by Him, and
bound together and arranged under laws, which may be analogically
compared to chains;[1236] and that by way of chastising the demons who
create disorder in it, he hurls them down headlong to this lower world.”
These words of Homer, he alleges, were so understood by Pherecydes, when
he said that beneath that region is the region of Tartarus, which is
guarded by the Harpies and Tempest, daughters of Boreas, and to which
Zeus banishes any one of the gods who becomes disorderly. With the same
ideas also are closely connected the _peplos_ of Athena, which is beheld
by all in the procession of the _Panathenæa_. For it is manifest from
this, he continues, that a motherless and unsullied demon[1237] has the
mastery over the daring of the Giants. While accepting, moreover, the
fictions of the Greeks, he continues to heap against us such accusations
as the following, viz., that “the Son of God is punished by the devil,
and teaches us that we also, when punished by him, ought to endure it.
Now these statements are altogether ridiculous. For it is the devil, I
think, who ought rather to be punished, and those human beings who are
calumniated by him ought not to be threatened with chastisement.”
Footnote 1231:
θνητά. Instead of this reading, Guietus conjectures πτηκτά, which is
approved of by Ruæus.
Footnote 1232:
Ὠγηνόν, _i.e._ in Oceanum, Hesych.; Ὠγην, ὠκεανός, Suid.
Footnote 1233:
καὶ μὴ παραμυθησάμενος.
Footnote 1234:
Cf. _Iliad_, book i. v. 590, Pope’s translation.
Footnote 1235:
Cf. _Iliad_, book xv. vv. 18-24, Pope’s translation.
Footnote 1236:
ἀναλογίαις τισὶ συνέδησε καὶ ἐκόσμησεν ὁ Θεός.
Footnote 1237:
ἀμήτωρ τις καὶ ἄχραντος δαίμων.
Chapter XLIII.
Mark now, whether he who charges us with having committed errors of the
most impious kind, and with having wandered away from the [true meaning]
of the divine enigmas, is not himself clearly in error, from not
observing that in the writings of Moses, which are much older not merely
than Heraclitus and Pherecydes, but even than Homer, mention is made of
this wicked one, and of his having fallen from heaven. For the
serpent[1238]—from whom the Ophioneus spoken of by Pherecydes is
derived—having become the cause of man’s expulsion from the divine
Paradise, obscurely shadows forth something similar, having deceived the
woman[1239] by a promise of divinity and of greater blessings; and her
example is said to have been followed also by the man. And, further, who
else could the destroying angel mentioned in the Exodus of Moses[1240]
be, than he who was the author of destruction to them that obeyed him,
and did not withstand his wicked deeds, nor struggle against them?
Moreover, [the goat], which in the book of Leviticus[1241] is sent away
[into the wilderness], and which in the Hebrew language is named Azazel,
was none other than this; and it was necessary to send it away into the
desert, and to treat it as an expiatory sacrifice, because on it the lot
fell. For all who belong to the “worse” part, on account of their
wickedness, being opposed to those who are God’s heritage, are deserted
by God. Nay, with respect to the sons of Belial in the book of
Judges,[1242] whose sons are they said to be, save his, on account of
their wickedness? And besides all these instances, in the book of Job,
which is older even than Moses himself, the devil is distinctly
described as presenting himself before God,[1243] and asking for power
against Job, that he might involve him in trials[1244] of the most
painful kind; the first of which consisted in the loss of all his goods
and of his children, and the second in afflicting the whole body of Job
with the so-called disease of elephantiasis.[1245] I pass by what might
be quoted from the Gospels regarding the devil who tempted the Saviour,
that I may not appear to quote in reply to Celsus from more recent
writings on this question. In the last [chapter][1246] also of Job, in
which the Lord utters to Job amid tempest and clouds what is recorded in
the book which bears his name, there are not a few things referring to
the serpent. I have not yet mentioned the passages in Ezekiel,[1247]
where he speaks, as it were, of Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the
prince of Tyre; or those in Isaiah,[1248] where lament is made for the
king of Babylon, from which not a little might be learned concerning
evil, as to the nature of its origin and generation, and as to how it
derived its existence from some who had lost their wings,[1249] and who
had followed him who was the first to lose his own.
Footnote 1238:
Cf. Gen. iii.
Footnote 1239:
τὸ θηλύτερον γένος.
Footnote 1240:
Cf. Ex. xii. 23.
Footnote 1241:
Cf. Lev. xvi. 8.
Footnote 1242:
ἐναντίοι ὄντες τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔρημοί εἰσι Θεοῦ.
Footnote 1243:
Cf. Job i., ii.
Footnote 1244:
περιστάσεσι.
Footnote 1245:
ἀγρίῳ ἐλέφαντι.
Footnote 1246:
Cf. Job xl. 20.
Footnote 1247:
Cf. Ezek. xxxii. 1-28.
Footnote 1248:
Isa. xiv. 4 sqq.
Footnote 1249:
πτεροῤῥυησάντων. Cf. Book iv. c. 40.
Chapter XLIV.
For it is impossible that the good which is the result of accident, or
of communication, should be like that good which comes by nature; and
yet the former will never be lost by him who, so to speak, partakes of
the “living” bread with a view to his own preservation. But if it
should fail any one, it must be through his own fault, in being
slothful to partake of this “living bread” and “genuine drink,” by
means of which the wings, nourished and watered, are fitted for their
purpose, even according to the saying of Solomon, the wisest of men,
concerning the truly rich man, that “he made to himself wings like an
eagle, and returns to the house of his patron.”[1250] For it became
God, who knows how to turn to proper account even those who in their
wickedness have apostatized from Him, to place wickedness of this sort
in some part of the universe, and to appoint a training-school of
virtue, wherein those must exercise themselves who would desire to
recover in a “lawful manner”[1251] the possession [which they had
lost]; in order that being tested, like gold in the fire, by the
wickedness of these, and having exerted themselves to the utmost to
prevent anything base injuring their rational nature, they may appear
deserving of an ascent to divine things, and may be elevated by the
Word to the blessedness which is above all things, and so to speak, to
the very summit of goodness. Now he who in the Hebrew language is
named Satan, and by some Satanas—as being more in conformity with the
genius of the Greek language—signifies, when translated into Greek,
“adversary.” But every one who prefers vice and a vicious life, is
(because acting in a manner contrary to virtue) Satanas, that is, an
“adversary” to the Son of God, who is righteousness, and truth, and
wisdom.[1252] With more propriety, however, is _he_ called
“adversary,” who was the first among those that were living a peaceful
and happy life to lose his wings, and to fall from blessedness; he
who, according to Ezekiel, walked faultlessly in all his ways, “until
iniquity was found in him,”[1253] and who being the “seal of
resemblance” and the “crown of beauty” in the paradise of God, being
filled as it were with good things, fell into destruction, in
accordance with the word which said to him in a mystic sense: “Thou
hast fallen into destruction, and shalt not abide for ever.”[1254] We
have ventured somewhat rashly to make these few remarks, although in
so doing we have added nothing of importance to this treatise. If any
one, however, who has leisure for the examination of the sacred
writings, should collect together from all sources and form into one
body of doctrine what is recorded concerning the origin of evil, and
the manner of its dissolution, he would see that the views of Moses
and the prophets regarding Satan had not been even dreamed of either
by Celsus or any one of those whose soul had been dragged down, and
torn away from God, and from right views of Him, and from His word, by
this wicked demon.
Footnote 1250:
Cf. Prov. xxiii. 5.
Footnote 1251:
Cf. 1 Tim. ii. 5.
Footnote 1252:
Cf. 1 Cor. i. 30.
Footnote 1253:
Cf. Ezek. xxviii. 15.
Footnote 1254:
Cf. Ezek. xxviii. 19.
Chapter XLV.
But since Celsus rejects the statements concerning Antichrist, as it is
termed, having neither read what is said of him in the book of
Daniel[1255] nor in the writings of Paul,[1256] nor what the Saviour in
the Gospels[1257] has predicted about his coming, we must make a few
remarks upon this subject also; because, “as faces do not resemble
faces,”[1258] so also neither do men’s “hearts” resemble one another. It
is certain, then, that there will be diversities amongst the hearts of
men,—those which are inclined to virtue not being all modelled and
shaped towards it in the same or like degree; while others, through
neglect of virtue, rush to the opposite extreme. And amongst the latter
are some in whom evil is deeply engrained, and others in whom it is less
deeply rooted. Where is the absurdity, then, in holding that there exist
among men, so to speak, two extremes,[1259]—the one of virtue, and the
other of its opposite; so that the perfection of virtue dwells in the
man who realizes the ideal given in Jesus, from whom there flowed to the
human race so great a conversion, and healing, and amelioration, while
the opposite extreme is in the man who embodies the notion of him that
is named Antichrist? For God, comprehending all things by means of His
foreknowledge, and foreseeing what consequences would result from both
of these, wished to make these known to mankind by His prophets, that
those who understand their words might be familiarized with the good,
and be on their guard against its opposite. It was proper, moreover,
that the one of these extremes, and the best of the two, should be
styled the Son of God, on account of His pre-eminence; and the other,
who is diametrically opposite, be termed the son of the wicked demon,
and of Satan, and of the devil. And, in the next place, since evil is
specially characterized by its diffusion, and attains its greatest
height when it simulates the appearance of the good, for that reason are
signs, and marvels, and lying miracles found to accompany evil, through
the co-operation of its father the devil. For, far surpassing the help
which these demons give to jugglers (who deceive men for the basest of
purposes), is the aid which the devil himself affords in order to
deceive the human race. Paul, indeed, speaks of him who is called
Antichrist, describing, though with a certain reserve,[1260] both the
manner, and time, and cause of his coming to the human race. And notice
whether his language on this subject is not most becoming, and
undeserving of being treated with even the slightest degree of ridicule.
Footnote 1255:
Cf. Dan. viii. 23.
Footnote 1256:
Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.
Footnote 1257:
Cf. Matt. xxiv. 4.
Footnote 1258:
Cf. Prov. xxvii. 19.
Footnote 1259:
ἀκρότητας.
Footnote 1260:
μετά τινος ἐπικρύψεως. Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 9.
Chapter XLVI.
It is thus that the apostle expresses himself: “We beseech you,
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering
together unto Him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled,
neither by word, nor by spirit, nor by letter as from us, as that the
day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for
_that day shall not come_, except there come a falling away first, and
that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so
that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth
_will let_, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked
be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth,
and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: _even him_, whose
coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and
lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them
that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they
might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who
believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”[1261] To
explain each particular here referred to does not belong to our present
purpose. The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of
Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire
the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the
things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of
Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world. And any one who
chooses may read it. Observe, however, whether the prophecy regarding
Antichrist be not as follows: “And at the latter time of their kingdom,
when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king, bold
in countenance, and understanding riddles. And his power shall be great,
and he shall destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise; and shall
destroy mighty men, and the holy people. And the yoke of his chain shall
prosper: there is craft in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his
heart, and by craft shall destroy many; and he shall stand up for the
destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand.”[1262]
What is stated by Paul in the words quoted from him, where he says, “so
that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is
God,”[1263] is in Daniel referred to in the following fashion: “And on
the temple shall be the abomination of desolations, and at the end of
the time an end shall be put to the desolation.”[1264] So many, out of a
greater number of passages, have I thought it right to adduce, that the
hearer may understand in some slight degree the meaning of Holy
Scripture, when it gives us information concerning the devil and
Antichrist; and being satisfied with what we have quoted for this
purpose, let us look at another of the charges of Celsus, and reply to
it as we best may.
Footnote 1261:
2 Thess. ii. 1-12.
Footnote 1262:
Cf. Dan. viii. 23-25 (LXX.).
Footnote 1263:
Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4.
Footnote 1264:
Cf. Dan. ix. 27.
Chapter XLVII.
Celsus, after what has been said, goes on as follows: “I can tell how
the very thing occurred, viz. that they should call him ‘Son of God.’
Men of ancient times termed this world, as being born of God, both his
child and his son.[1265] Both the one and other ‘Son of God,’ then,
greatly resembled each other.” He is therefore of opinion that we
employed the expression “Son of God,” having perverted[1266] what is
said of the world, as being born of God, and being His “Son,” and “a
God.” For he was unable so to consider the times of Moses and the
prophets, as to see that the Jewish prophets predicted generally that
there was a “Son of God” long before the Greeks and those men of ancient
time of whom Celsus speaks. Nay, he would not even quote the passage in
the letters of Plato, to which we referred in the preceding pages,
concerning Him who so beautifully arranged this world, as being the Son
of God; lest he too should be compelled by Plato, whom he often mentions
with respect, to admit that the architect of this world _is_ the Son of
God, and that His Father is the first God and Sovereign Ruler over all
things. Nor is it at all wonderful if we maintain that the soul of Jesus
is made one with so great a Son of God through the highest union with
Him, being no longer in a state of separation from Him. For the sacred
language of Holy Scripture knows of other things also, which, although
“dual” in their own nature, are considered to be, and really are, “one”
in respect to one another. It is said of husband and wife, “They are no
longer twain, but one flesh;”[1267] and of the perfect man, and of him
who is joined to the true Lord, Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, that “he
who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.”[1268] And if he who “is joined
to the Lord is one spirit,” who has been joined to the Lord, the Very
Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, in a more intimate
union, or even in a manner at all approaching to it than the soul of
Jesus? And if this be so, then the soul of Jesus and God the Word—the
first-born of every creature—are no longer two, [but one].
Footnote 1265:
παῖδά τε αὐτοῦ καὶ ἠΐθεον.
Footnote 1266:
παραποιήσαντας.
Footnote 1267:
Cf. Gen. ii. 24.
Footnote 1268:
Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 17.
Chapter XLVIII.
In the next place, when the philosophers of the Porch, who assert that
the virtue of God and man is the same, maintain that the God who is over
all things is not happier than _their_ wise man, but that the happiness
of both is equal, Celsus neither ridicules nor scoffs at their opinion.
If, however, Holy Scripture says that the perfect man is joined to and
made one with the Very Word by means of virtue, so that we infer that
the soul of Jesus is not separated from the first-born of all creation,
he laughs at Jesus being called “Son of God,” not observing what is said
of Him with a secret and mystical signification in the Holy Scriptures.
But that we may win over to the reception of our views those who are
willing to accept the inferences which flow from our doctrines, and to
be benefited thereby, we say that the Holy Scriptures declare the body
of Christ, animated by the Son of God, to be the whole church of God,
and the members of this body—considered as a whole—to consist of those
who are believers; since, as a soul vivifies and moves the body, which
of itself has not the natural power of motion like a living being, so
the Word, arousing and moving the whole body, the church, to befitting
action, awakens, moreover, each individual member belonging to the
church, so that they do nothing apart from the Word. Since all this,
then, follows by a train of reasoning not to be depreciated, where is
the difficulty in maintaining that, as the _soul_ of Jesus is joined in
a perfect and inconceivable manner with the very Word, so the person of
Jesus, generally speaking,[1269] is not separated from the only-begotten
and first-born of all creation, and is not a different being from Him?
But enough here on this subject.
Footnote 1269:
ἁπαξαπλῶς.
Chapter XLIX.
Let us notice now what follows, where, expressing in a single word his
opinion regarding the Mosaic cosmogony, without offering, however, a
single argument in its support, he finds fault with it, saying:
“Moreover, their cosmogony is extremely silly.”[1270] Now, if he had
produced some credible proofs of its silly character, we should have
endeavoured to answer them; but it does not appear to me reasonable that
I should be called upon to demonstrate, in answer to his mere
_assertion_, that it is _not_ “silly.” If any one, however, wishes to
see the reasons which led us to accept the Mosaic account, and the
arguments by which it may be defended, he may read what we have written
upon Genesis, from the beginning of the book up to the passage, “And
this is the book of the generation of men,”[1271] where we have tried to
show from the Holy Scriptures themselves what the “heaven” was which was
created in the beginning; and what the “earth,” and the “invisible part
of the earth,” and that which was “without form;”[1272] and what the
“deep” was, and the “darkness” that was upon it; and what the “water”
was, and the “Spirit of God” which was “borne over it;” and what the
“light” which was created, and what the “firmament,” as distinct from
the “heaven” which was created in the beginning; and so on with the
other subjects that follow. Celsus has also expressed his opinion that
the narrative of the creation of man is “exceedingly silly,” without
stating any proofs, or endeavouring to answer our arguments; for he had
no evidence, in my judgment, which was fitted to overthrow the statement
that “man has been made in the image of God.”[1273] He does not even
understand the meaning of the “Paradise” that was planted by God, and of
the life which man first led in it; and of that which resulted from
accident,[1274] when man was cast forth on account of his sin, and was
settled opposite the Paradise of delight. Now, as he asserts that these
are silly statements, let him turn his attention not merely to each one
of them [in general], but to this in particular, “He placed the
cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way
of the tree of life,”[1275] and say whether Moses wrote these words with
no serious object in view, but in the spirit of the writers of the old
Comedy, who have sportively related that “Prœtus slew Bellerophon,” and
that “Pegasus came from Arcadia.” Now their object was to create
laughter in composing such stories; whereas it is incredible that he who
left behind him laws[1276] for a whole nation, regarding which he wished
to persuade his subjects that they were given by God, should have
written words so little to the purpose,[1277] and have said without any
meaning, “He placed the cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned
every way, to keep the way of the tree of life,” or made any other
statement regarding the creation of man, which is the subject of
philosophic investigation by the Hebrew sages.
Footnote 1270:
μάλα εὐηθική.
Footnote 1271:
Cf. Gen. v. 1.
Footnote 1272:
ἀκατασκεύαστον.
Footnote 1273:
Cf. Gen. i. 26.
Footnote 1274:
τὴν ἐκ περιστάσεως γενομένην.
Footnote 1275:
Gen. iii. 24.
Footnote 1276:
γραφάς.
Footnote 1277:
ἀπρόσλογα.
Chapter L.
In the next place, Celsus, after heaping together, simply as mere
assertions, the varying opinions of some of the ancients regarding the
world, and the origin of man, alleges that “Moses and the prophets, who
have left to us our books, not knowing at all what the nature of the
world is, and of man, have woven together a web of sheer
nonsense.”[1278] If he had shown, now, _how_ it appeared to him that the
Holy Scriptures contained “sheer nonsense,” we should have tried to
demolish the arguments which appeared to him to establish their
nonsensical character; but on the present occasion, following his own
example, we also sportively give it as our opinion that Celsus, knowing
nothing at all about the nature of the meaning and language of the
prophets,[1279] composed a work which contained “sheer nonsense,” and
boastfully gave it the title of a “true discourse.” And since he makes
the statements about the “days of creation” ground of accusation,—as if
he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed _before_
the creation of light and heaven, and sun, and moon, and stars, and some
of them _after_ the creation of these,—we shall only make this
observation, that Moses must then have forgotten that he had said a
little before, “that in six days the creation of the world had been
finished,” and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he
subjoins to these words the following: “This is the book of the creation
of man, in the day when God made the heaven and the earth!” But it is
not in the least credible, that after what he had said respecting the
six days, Moses should immediately add, without a special meaning, the
words, “in the day that God made the heavens and the earth;” and if any
one thinks that these words may be referred to the statement, “In the
beginning, God made the heaven and the earth,” let him observe that
before the words, “Let there be light, and there was light,” and these,
“God called the light day,” it has been stated that “in the beginning
God made the heaven and the earth.”
Footnote 1278:
συνθεῖναι λῆρον βαθύν.
Footnote 1279:
ὅτι τίς ποτέ ἐστιν ἡ φύσις τοῦ νοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις λόγου.
Chapter LI.
On the present occasion, however, it is not our object to enter into an
explanation of the subject of intelligent and sensible beings,[1280] nor
of the manner in which the different kinds[1281] of days were allotted
to both sorts, nor to investigate the details which belong to the
subject, for we should need whole treatises for the exposition of the
Mosaic cosmogony; and that work we had already performed, to the best of
our ability, a considerable time before the commencement of this answer
to Celsus, when we discussed with such measure of capacity as we then
possessed the question of the Mosaic cosmogony of the six days. We must
keep in mind, however, that the Word promises to the righteous through
the mouth of Isaiah, that days will come[1282] when not the sun, but the
Lord Himself, will be to them an everlasting light, and God will be
their glory.[1283] And it is from misunderstanding, I think, some
pestilent heresy which gave an erroneous interpretation to the words,
“Let there be light,” as if they were the expression of a _wish_[1284]
merely on the part of the Creator, that Celsus made the remark: “The
Creator did not borrow light from above, like those persons who kindle
their lamps at those of their neighbours.” Misunderstanding, moreover,
another impious heresy, he has said: “If, indeed, there did exist an
accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his
approval, why did he lend him the light?” So far are we from offering a
defence of such puerilities, that we desire, on the contrary, distinctly
to arraign the statements of these heretics as erroneous, and to
undertake to refute, not those of their opinions with which we are
_unacquainted_, as Celsus does, but those of which we have attained an
accurate knowledge, derived in part from the statements of their own
adherents, and partly from a careful perusal of their writings.
Footnote 1280:
περὶ νοητῶν καὶ αἰσθητῶν.
Footnote 1281:
αἱ φύσεις τῶν ἡμερῶν.
Footnote 1282:
ἐν καταστάσει ἔσεσθαι ἡμέρας.
Footnote 1283:
Cf. Isa. lx. 19.
Footnote 1284:
εὐκτικῶς.
Chapter LII.
Celsus proceeds as follows: “With regard to the origin of the world and
its destruction, whether it is to be regarded as uncreated and
indestructible, or as created indeed, but not destructible, or the
reverse, I at present say nothing.” For this reason we too say nothing
on these points, as the work in hand does not require it. Nor do we
allege that the Spirit of the universal God mingled itself in things
here below as in things alien to itself,[1285] as might appear from the
expression, “The Spirit of God moved upon the water;” nor do we assert
that certain wicked devices directed against His Spirit, as if by a
different creator from the great God, and which were tolerated by the
Supreme Divinity, needed to be completely frustrated. And, accordingly,
I have nothing further to say to those[1286] who utter such absurdities;
nor to Celsus, who does not refute them with ability. For he ought
either _not_ to have mentioned such matters at all, or else, in keeping
with that character for philanthropy which he assumes, have carefully
set them forth, and then endeavoured to rebut these impious assertions.
Nor have we ever heard that the great God, after giving his spirit to
the creator, demands it back again. Proceeding next foolishly to assail
these impious assertions, he asks: “What god gives anything with the
intention of demanding it back? For it is the mark of a needy person to
demand back [what he has given], whereas God stands in need of nothing.”
To this he adds, as if saying something clever against certain parties:
“Why, when he lent [his spirit], was he ignorant that he was lending it
to an evil being?” He asks, further: “Why does he pass without
notice[1287] a wicked creator who was counter-working his purposes?”
Footnote 1285:
ὡς ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις τοῖς τῇδε.
Footnote 1286:
μακρὰν χαιρέτωσαν.
Footnote 1287:
περιορᾷ.
Chapter LIII.
In the next place, mixing up together various heresies, and not
observing that some statements are the utterances of one heretical sect,
and others of a different one, he brings forward the objections which we
raised against Marcion.[1288] And, probably, having heard them from some
paltry and ignorant individuals,[1289] he assails the very arguments
which combat them, but not in a way that shows much intelligence.
Quoting then our arguments against Marcion, and not observing that it is
_against_ Marcion that he is speaking, he asks: “Why does he send
secretly, and destroy the works which he has created? Why does he
secretly employ force, and persuasion, and deceit? Why does he allure
those who, as ye assert, have been condemned or accused by him, and
carry them away like a slave-dealer? Why does he teach them to steal
away from their Lord? Why to flee from their father? Why does he claim
them for himself against the father’s will? Why does he profess to be
the father of strange children?” To these questions he subjoins the
following remark, as if by way of expressing his surprise:[1290]
“Venerable, indeed, is the god who desires to be the father of those
sinners who are condemned by another [god], and of the needy,[1291] and,
as themselves say, of the very offscourings[1292] [of men], and who is
unable to capture and punish his messenger, who escaped from him!” After
this, as if addressing us who acknowledge that this world is not the
work of a different and strange god, he continues in the following
strain: “If these are his works, how is it that God created evil? And
how is it that he cannot persuade and admonish [men]? And how is it that
he repents on account of the ingratitude and wickedness of men? He finds
fault, moreover, with his own handwork,[1293] and hates, and threatens,
and destroys his own offspring? Whither can he transport them out of
this world, which he himself has made?” Now it does not appear to me
that by these remarks he makes clear what “evil” is; and although there
have been among the Greeks many sects who differ as to the nature of
good and evil, he hastily concludes, as if it were a consequence of our
maintaining that this world also is a work of the universal God, that in
_our_ judgment _God_ is the author of evil. Let it be, however,
regarding evil as it may—whether created by God or not—it nevertheless
follows only as a _result_ when you compare the principal design.[1294]
And I am greatly surprised if the inference regarding God’s authorship
of evil, which he thinks follows from our maintaining that this world
also is the work of the universal God, does not follow too from his
_own_ statements. For one might say to Celsus: “If these are His works,
how is it that God created evil? and how is it that He cannot persuade
and admonish men?” It is indeed the greatest error in reasoning to
accuse those who are of different opinions of holding unsound doctrines,
when the accuser himself is much more liable to the same charge with
regard to his own.
Footnote 1288:
Cf. Book v. c. 54.
Footnote 1289:
The textual reading is, ἀπό τινων εὐτελῶς καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς, for which
Ruæus reads, ἀπό τινων εὐτελῶν καὶ ἰδιωτικῶν, which emendation has
been adopted in the translation.
Footnote 1290:
οἱονεὶ θαυμαστικῶς.
Footnote 1291:
ἀκλήρων.
Footnote 1292:
σκυβάλων.
Footnote 1293:
τέχνην.
Footnote 1294:
ἐκ παρακολουθήσεως γεγένηται τῆς πρὸς τὰ προηγούμενα.
Chapter LIV.
Let us see, then, briefly what Holy Scripture has to say regarding good
and evil, and what answer we are to return to the questions, “How is it
that God created evil?” and, “How is He incapable of persuading and
admonishing men?” Now, according to Holy Scripture, properly speaking,
virtues and virtuous actions are good, as, properly speaking, the
reverse of these are evil. We shall be satisfied with quoting on the
present occasion some verses from the 34th Psalm, to the following
effect: “They that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing. Come, ye
children, hearken unto me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What
man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see
good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.
Depart from evil, and do good.”[1295] Now, the injunctions to “depart
from evil, and to do good,” do not refer either to _corporeal_ evils or
_corporeal_ blessings, as they are termed by some, nor to external
things at all, but to blessings and evils of a _spiritual_ kind; since
he who departs from such evils, and performs such virtuous actions,
will, as one who desires the true life, come to the enjoyment of it; and
as one loving to see “good days,” in which the word of righteousness
will be the Sun, he will see them, God taking him away from this
“present evil world,”[1296] and from those evil days concerning which
Paul said: “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.”[1297]
Footnote 1295:
Cf. Ps. xxxiv. 10-14.
Footnote 1296:
Cf. Gal. i. 4.
Footnote 1297:
Cf. Eph. v. 16.
Chapter LV.
Passages, indeed, might be found where corporeal and external [benefits]
are improperly[1298] called “good,”—those things, viz., which contribute
to the natural life, while those which do the reverse are termed “evil.”
It is in this sense that Job says to his wife: “If we have received good
at the hand of the Lord, shall we not also receive evil?”[1299] Since,
then, there is found in the sacred Scriptures, in a certain passage,
this statement put into the mouth of God, “I make peace, and create
evil;”[1300] and again another, where it is said of Him that “evil came
down from the Lord to the gate of Jerusalem, the noise of chariots and
horsemen,”[1301]—passages which have disturbed many readers of
Scripture, who are unable to see what Scripture means by “good” and
“evil,”—it is probable that Celsus, being perplexed thereby, gave
utterance to the question, “How is it that God created evil?” or,
perhaps, having heard some one discussing the matters relating to it in
an ignorant manner, he made this statement which we have noticed. We, on
the other hand, maintain that “evil,” or “wickedness,” and the actions
which proceed from it, were _not_ created by God. For if God created
that which is _really_ evil, how was it possible that the proclamation
regarding [the last] judgment should be confidently announced,[1302]
which informs us that the wicked are to be punished for their evil deeds
in proportion to the amount of their wickedness, while those who have
lived a virtuous life, or performed virtuous actions, will be in the
enjoyment of blessedness, and will receive rewards from God? I am well
aware that those who would daringly assert that these evils were created
by God will quote certain expressions of Scripture [in their support],
because we are not able to show one consistent series[1303] of passages;
for although Scripture [generally] blames the wicked and approves of the
righteous, it nevertheless contains some statements which, although
comparatively[1304] few in number, seem to disturb the minds of ignorant
readers of Holy Scripture. I have not, however, deemed it appropriate to
my present treatise to quote on the present occasion those discordant
statements, which are many in number,[1305] and their explanations,
which would require a long array of proofs. Evils, then, if those be
meant which are _properly_ so called, were _not_ created by God; but
some, although _few_ in comparison with the order of the _whole_ world,
_have_ resulted from His principal works, as there follow from the chief
works of the carpenter such things as spiral shavings and sawdust,[1306]
or as architects might appear to be the cause of the rubbish[1307] which
lies around their buildings in the form of the filth which drops from
the stones and the plaster.
Footnote 1298:
καταχρηστικώτερον.
Footnote 1299:
Cf. Job ii. 10.
Footnote 1300:
Cf. Isa. xlv. 7.
Footnote 1301:
Cf. Mic. i. 12, 13. The rendering of the Heb. in the first clause of
the thirteenth verse is different from that of the LXX.
Footnote 1302:
παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν.
Footnote 1303:
ὕφος.
Footnote 1304:
ὀλίγα must be taken _comparatively_, on account of the πολλάς that
follows afterwards.
Footnote 1305:
πολλάς. See note 3.
Footnote 1306:
τὰ ἑλικοειδῆ ξέσματα καὶ πρίσματα.
Footnote 1307:
τὰ παρακείμενα.
Chapter LVI.
If we speak, however, of what are called “corporeal” and “external”
evils,—which are improperly so termed,—then it may be granted that
there _are_ occasions when some of these have been called into
existence by God, in order that by their means the conversion of
certain individuals might be effected. And what absurdity would follow
from such a course? For as, if we should hear those sufferings[1308]
improperly termed “evils” which are inflicted by fathers, and
instructors, and pedagogues upon those who are under their care, or
upon patients who are operated upon or cauterized by the surgeons in
order to effect a cure, we were to say that a father was ill-treating
his son, or pedagogues and instructors their pupils, or physicians
their patients, no blame would be laid upon the operators or
chastisers; so, in the same way, if God is said to bring upon men such
evils for the conversion and cure of those who need this discipline,
there would be no absurdity in the view, nor would “evils come down
from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem,”[1309]—which evils consist
of the punishments inflicted upon the Israelites by their enemies with
a view to their conversion; nor would one visit “with a rod the
transgressions of those who forsake the law of the Lord, and their
iniquities with stripes;”[1310] nor could it be said, “Thou hast coals
of fire to set upon them; they shall be to thee a help.”[1311] In the
same way also we explain the expressions, “I, who make peace, and
create evil;”[1312] for He calls into existence “corporeal” or
“external” evils, while purifying and training those who would not be
disciplined by the word and sound doctrine. This, then, is our answer
to the question, “How is it that God created evil?”
Footnote 1308:
πόνους.
Footnote 1309:
Cf. Mic. i. 12.
Footnote 1310:
Cf. Ps. lxxxix. 32.
Footnote 1311:
Cf. Isa. xlvii. 14, 15.
Footnote 1312:
Cf. Isa. xlv. 7.
Chapter LVII.
With respect to the question, “How is he incapable of persuading and
admonishing men?” it has been already stated that, if such an objection
were really a ground of charge, then the objection of Celsus might be
brought against those who accept the doctrine of providence. Any one
might answer the charge that God is incapable of admonishing men; for He
conveys His admonitions throughout the whole of Scripture, and by means
of those persons who, through God’s gracious appointment, are the
instructors of His hearers. Unless, indeed, some peculiar meaning be
understood to attach to the word “admonish,” as if it signified both to
penetrate into the mind of the person admonished, and to make him hear
the words of his[1313] instructor, which is contrary to the usual
meaning of the word. To the objection, “How is he incapable of
persuading?”—which also might be brought against all who believe in
providence,—we have to make the following remarks. Since the expression
“to be persuaded” belongs to those words which are termed, so to speak,
“reciprocal”[1314] (compare the phrase “to shave a man,” when he makes
an effort to submit himself to the barber[1315]), there is for this
reason needed not merely the effort of him who persuades, but also the
submission, so to speak, which is to be yielded to the persuader, or the
acceptance of what is said by him. And therefore it must not be said
that it is because God is _incapable_ of persuading men that they are
not persuaded, but because they will not accept the faithful words of
God. And if one were to apply this expression to men who are the
“artificers of persuasion,”[1316] he would not be wrong; for it is
possible for a man who has thoroughly learned the principles of
rhetoric, and who employs them properly, to do his utmost to persuade,
and yet appear to fail, because he cannot overcome the will of him who
ought to yield to his persuasive arts. Moreover, that persuasion does
not come from God, although persuasive words may be uttered by him, is
distinctly taught by Paul, when he says: “This persuasion cometh not of
him that calleth you.”[1317] Such also is the view indicated by these
words: “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the
land; but if ye refuse and rebel, a sword shall devour you.”[1318] For
that one may [really] desire what is addressed to him by one who
admonishes, and may become deserving of those promises of God which he
hears, it is necessary to secure the will of the hearer, and his
inclination to what is addressed to him. And therefore it appears to me,
that in the book of Deuteronomy the following words are uttered with
peculiar emphasis: “And now, O Israel, what doth the Lord thy God
require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, and to walk in all His
ways, and to love Him, and to keep His commandments?”[1319]
Footnote 1313:
τὸ καὶ ἐπιτυγχάνειν ἐν τῷ νουθετουμένῳ καὶ ἀκούειν τὸν τοῦ διδάσκοντος
λόγον.
Footnote 1314:
ὡσπερεὶ τῶν καλουμένων ἀντιπεπονθότων ἔστιν.
Footnote 1315:
ἀνάλογον τῷ κείρεσθαι ἄνθρωπον, ἐνεργοῦντα τὸ παρέχειν ἑαυτὸν τῷ
κείροντι.
Footnote 1316:
πειθοῦς δημιουργῶν.
Footnote 1317:
Cf. Gal. v. 8.
Footnote 1318:
Cf. Isa. i. 19, 20.
Footnote 1319:
Cf. Deut. x. 12, 13.
Chapter LVIII.
There is next to be answered the following query: “And how is it that he
repents when men become ungrateful and wicked; and finds fault with his
own handwork, and hates, and threatens, and destroys his own offspring?”
Now Celsus here calumniates and falsifies what is written in the book of
Genesis to the following effect: “And the Lord God, seeing that the
wickedness of men upon the earth was increasing, and that every one in
his heart carefully meditated to do evil continually, was grieved[1320]
He had made man upon the earth. And God meditated in His heart, and
said, I will destroy man, whom I have made, from the face of the earth,
both man and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air, because I
am grieved[1321] that I made them;”[1322] quoting words which are not
written in Scripture, as if they conveyed the meaning of what was
actually written. For there is no mention in these words of the
repentance of God, nor of His blaming and hating His own handwork. And
if there is the appearance of God threatening the catastrophe of the
deluge, and thus destroying His own children in it, we have to answer
that, as the soul of man is immortal, the supposed threatening has for
its object the conversion of the hearers, while the destruction of men
by the flood is a purification of the earth, as certain among the Greek
philosophers of no mean repute have indicated by the expression: “When
the gods purify the earth.”[1323] And with respect to the transference
to God of those anthropopathic phrases, some remarks have been already
made by us in the preceding pages.
Footnote 1320:
ἐνεθυμήθη, in all probability a corruption for ἐθυμώθη, which Hoeschel
places in the text, and Spencer in the margin of his ed.: Heb. וַיִּנָּחֶם.
Footnote 1321:
ἐνεθυμήθην. Cf. remark in note 2.
Footnote 1322:
Cf. Gen. vi. 5, 6.
Footnote 1323:
Cf. Plato in _Timæo_.
Chapter LIX.
Celsus, in the next place, suspecting, or perhaps seeing clearly enough,
the answer which might be returned by those who defend the destruction
of men by the deluge, continues: “But if he does not destroy his own
offspring, whither does he convey them out of this world[1324] which he
himself created?” To this we reply, that God by no means removes out of
the whole world, consisting of heaven and earth, those who suffered
death by the deluge, but removes them from a life in the flesh, and,
having set them free from their bodies, liberates them at the same time
from an existence upon earth, which in many parts of Scripture it is
usual to call the “world.” In the Gospel according to John especially,
we may frequently find the regions of earth[1325] termed “world,” as in
the passage, “He was the true light, which lighteneth every man that
cometh into the ‘world;’”[1326] as also in this, “In the world ye shall
have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the
world.”[1327] If, then, we understand by “removing out of the world” a
transference from “regions on earth,” there is nothing absurd in the
expression. If, on the contrary, the system of things which consists of
heaven and earth be termed “world,” then those who perished in the
deluge are by no means removed out of the so-called “world.” And yet,
indeed, if we have regard to the words, “Looking not at the things which
are seen, but at the things which are not seen;”[1328] and also to
these, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made,”[1329]—we might say that he who dwells amid the “invisible”
things, and what are called generally “things not seen,” _is_ gone out
of the world, the Word having removed him hence, and transported him to
the heavenly regions, in order to behold all beautiful things.
Footnote 1324:
κόσμος.
Footnote 1325:
τὸν περίγειον τόπον.
Footnote 1326:
Cf. John i. 9.
Footnote 1327:
Cf. John xvi. 33.
Footnote 1328:
Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 18.
Footnote 1329:
Cf. Rom. i. 20.
Chapter LX.
But after this investigation of his assertions, as if his object were to
swell his book by many words, he repeats, in different language, the
same charges which we have examined a little ago, saying: “By far the
most silly thing is the distribution of the creation of the world over
certain days, _before days existed_: for, as the heaven was not yet
created, nor the foundation of the earth yet laid,[1330] nor the sun yet
revolving,[1331] how could there be _days_?” Now, what difference is
there between these words and the following: “Moreover, taking and
looking at these things from the beginning, would it not be absurd in
the first and greatest God to issue the command, Let this [first thing]
come into existence, and this second thing, and this [third]; and after
accomplishing so much on the first day, to do so much more again on the
second, and third, and fourth, and fifth, and sixth?” We answered to the
best of our ability this objection to God’s “commanding this first,
second, and third thing to be created,” when we quoted the words, “He
said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;”[1332]
remarking that the immediate[1333] Creator, and, as it were, very
Maker[1334] of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father
of the Word, by commanding His own Son—the Word—to create the world, is
_primarily_ Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon
the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the
gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their
several reservoirs[1335] on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout
forth those [fruits] which are under the control of nature alone[1336]),
and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth, and of
aquatic[1337] animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon
the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon
Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with
those who, taking the words in their _apparent_ signification, said that
the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and
quoted the words: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens.”[1338]
Footnote 1330:
ἐρηρεισμένης.
Footnote 1331:
τῇδε φερομένου.
Footnote 1332:
Cf. Ps. xxxiii. 9.
Footnote 1333:
τὸν προσεχῶς δημιουργόν.
Footnote 1334:
αὐτουργόν.
Footnote 1335:
συναγωγὰς.
Footnote 1336:
τὰ ὑπὸ μόνης φύσεως διοικούμενα.
Footnote 1337:
τὰ νηκτά.
Footnote 1338:
Cf. Gen. ii. 4.
Chapter LXI.
Again, not understanding the meaning of the words, “And God ended on the
sixth day His works which He had made, and ceased[1339] on the seventh
day from all His works which He had made: and God blessed the seventh
day, and hallowed it, because on it He had ceased[1340] from all His
works which He had begun to make;”[1341] and imagining the expression,
“He _ceased_ on the seventh day,” to be the same as this, “He
_rested_[1342] on the seventh day,” he makes the remark: “After this,
indeed, he is weary, like a very bad workman, who stands in need of rest
to refresh himself!” For he knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and
rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and
which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those
will keep festival with God who have done all _their_ works in _their_
six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties,[1343]
will ascend to the contemplation [of celestial things], and to the
assembly of righteous and blessed beings. In the next place, as if
either the Scriptures made such a statement, or as if we ourselves so
spoke of God as having rested from fatigue, he continues: “It is not in
keeping with the fitness of things[1344] that the first God should feel
fatigue, or work with His hands,[1345] or give forth commands.” Celsus
says, that “it is not in keeping with the fitness of things that the
first God should feel fatigue.” Now we would say that neither does God
the Word feel fatigue, nor any of those beings who belong to a better
and diviner order of things, because the sensation of fatigue is
peculiar to those who are in the body. You can examine whether this is
true of those who possess a body of any kind, or of those who have an
_earthly_ body, or one a little better than this. But “neither is it
consistent with the fitness of things that the first God should work
with His own hands.” If you understand the words “work with His own
hands” _literally_, then neither are they applicable to the _second_
God, nor to any other being partaking of divinity. But suppose that they
are spoken in an improper and figurative sense, so that we may translate
the following expressions, “And the firmament showeth forth His
handywork,”[1346] and “the heavens are the work of Thy hands,”[1347] and
any other similar phrases, in a figurative manner, so far as respects
the “hands” and “limbs” of Deity, where is the absurdity in the words,
“God thus working with His own hands?” And as there is no absurdity in
God thus working, so neither is there in His issuing “commands;” so that
what is done at His bidding should be beautiful and praiseworthy,
because it was God who commanded it to be performed.
Footnote 1339:
κατέπαυσεν.
Footnote 1340:
κατέπαυσεν.
Footnote 1341:
Cf. Gen. ii. 2, 3.
Footnote 1342:
ἀνεπαύσατο.
Footnote 1343:
τῶν ἐπιβαλλόντων.
Footnote 1344:
οὐ θέμις.
Footnote 1345:
χειρουργεῖν.
Footnote 1346:
Cf. Ps. xix. 1.
Footnote 1347:
Cf. Ps. cii. 25.
Chapter LXII.
Celsus, again, having perhaps misunderstood the words, “For the mouth of
the Lord hath spoken it,”[1348] or perhaps because some ignorant
individuals had rashly ventured upon the explanation of such things, and
not understanding, moreover, on what principles parts called after the
names of the bodily members are assigned to the attributes[1349] of God,
asserts: “He has neither mouth nor voice.” Truly, indeed, God can have
no voice, if the voice is a concussion of the air, or a stroke on the
air, or a species of air, or any other definition which may be given to
the voice by those who are skilled in such matters; but what is called
the “voice of God” is said to be _seen_ as “God’s voice” by the people
in the passage, “And all the people saw the voice of God;”[1350] the
word “saw” being taken, agreeably to the custom of Scripture, in a
spiritual sense. Moreover, he alleges that “God possesses nothing else
of which _we_ have any knowledge;” but of what things _we_ have
knowledge he gives no indication. If he means “limbs,” we agree with
him, understanding the things “of which we have knowledge” to be those
called corporeal, and pretty generally so termed. But if we are to
understand the words “of which _we_ have knowledge” in a universal
sense, then there are many things of which we have knowledge, [and which
may be attributed to God]; for He possesses virtue, and blessedness, and
divinity. If we, however, put a higher meaning upon the words, “of which
_we_ have knowledge,” since all that we know is less than God, there is
no absurdity in our also admitting that God possesses none of those
things “of which _we_ have knowledge.” For the attributes which belong
to God are far superior to all things with which not merely the nature
of man is acquainted, but even that of those who have risen far above
it. And if he had read the writings of the prophets, David on the one
hand saying, “But Thou art the same,”[1351] and Malachi on the other, “I
am [the Lord], and change not,”[1352] he would have observed that none
of us assert that there is any change in God, either in act or thought.
For abiding the same, He administers mutable things according to their
nature, and His word elects to undertake their administration.
Footnote 1348:
Cf. Isa. i. 20.
Footnote 1349:
ἐπὶ τῶν δυνάμεων.
Footnote 1350:
Cf. Ex. xx. 18 (LXX.). The Masoretic text is different.
Footnote 1351:
Cf. Ps. cii. 27.
Footnote 1352:
Cf. Mal. iii. 6.
Chapter LXIII.
Celsus, not observing the difference between “after the image of God”
and “God’s image,” next asserts that the “first-born of every creature”
is the image of God,—the very word and truth, and also the very wisdom,
being the image of His goodness, while man has been created _after_ the
image of God; moreover, that every man whose head is Christ is the image
and glory of God;—and further, not observing to which of the
characteristics of humanity the expression “after the image of God”
belongs, and that it consists in a nature which never had or no longer
has “the old man with his deeds,” being called “after the image of Him
who created it,” from its not possessing these qualities,—he maintains:
“Neither did He make man His image; for God is not such an one, nor like
any other species of [visible] being.” Is it possible to suppose that
the element which is “after the image of God” should exist in the
inferior part—I mean the body—of a compound being like man, because
Celsus has explained that to be made after the image of God? For if that
which is “after the image of God” be in the body only, the better part,
the soul, has been deprived of that which is “after His image,” and this
[distinction] exists in the corruptible body,—an assertion which is made
by none of us. But if that which is “after the image of God” be in _both
together_, then God must necessarily be a compound being, and consist,
as it were, of soul and body, in order that the element which is “after
God’s image,” the better part, may be in the soul; while the inferior
part, and that which “is according to the body,” may be in the body,—an
assertion, again, which is made by none of us. It remains, therefore,
that that which is “after the image of God” must be understood to be in
our “inner man,” which is also renewed, and whose nature it is to be
“after the image of Him who created it,” when a man becomes “perfect,”
as “our Father in heaven is perfect,” and hears the command, “Be ye
holy, for I the Lord your God am holy,”[1353] and learning the precept,
“Be ye followers of God,”[1354] receives into his virtuous soul the
traits of God’s image. The body, moreover, of him who possesses such a
soul is a temple of God; and in the soul God dwells, because it has been
made after His image.[1355]
Footnote 1353:
Lev. xi. 44.
Footnote 1354:
Cf. Eph. v. 1 (μιμηταί).
Footnote 1355:
The words as they stand in the text are probably corrupt: we have
adopted in the translation the emendation of Guietus: ἔτι καὶ ναός
ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ το σῶμα τοῦ τοιαύτην ἔχοντος ψυχὴν, καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ διὰ
τὸ κατ’ εἰκόνα, τὸν Θεόν.
Chapter LXIV.
Celsus, again, brings together a number of statements, which he gives as
admissions on our part, but which no intelligent Christian would allow.
For not one of us asserts that “God partakes of form or colour.” Nor
does He even partake of “motion,” because He stands firm, and His nature
is permanent, and He invites the righteous man also to do the same,
saying: “But as for thee, stand thou here by me.”[1356] And if certain
expressions indicate a kind of motion, as it were, on his part, such as
this, “They heard the voice of the Lord God _walking_ in the garden in
the cool of the day,”[1357] we must understand them in this way, that it
is by sinners that God is understood as moving, or as we understand the
“sleep” of God, which is taken in a figurative sense, or His “anger,” or
any other similar attribute. But “God does not partake even of
substance.”[1358] For He is partaken of [by others] rather than that
Himself partakes of them, and He is partaken of by those who have the
Spirit of God. Our Saviour, also, does not partake of righteousness; but
being Himself “righteousness,” He is partaken of _by_ the righteous. A
discussion about “substance” would be protracted and difficult, and
especially if it were a question whether that which is permanent and
immaterial be “substance” properly so called, so that it would be found
that God is _beyond_ “substance,” communicating of His “substance,” by
means of office and power,[1359] to those to whom He communicates
Himself by His Word, as He does to the Word Himself; or even if He _is_
“substance,” yet He is said to be in His nature “invisible,” in these
words respecting our Saviour, who is said to be “the image of the
_invisible_ God,”[1360] while from the term “invisible” it is indicated
that He is “immaterial.” It is also a question for investigation,
whether the “only-begotten” and “first-born of every creature” is to be
called “substance of substances,” and “idea of ideas,” and the
“principle of all things,” while above all there is His Father and God.
Footnote 1356:
Deut. v. 31.
Footnote 1357:
Cf. Gen. iii. 8.
Footnote 1358:
οὐσία.
Footnote 1359:
πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει.
Footnote 1360:
Cf. Col. i. 15.
Chapter LXV.
Celsus proceeds to say of God that “of Him are all things,” abandoning
[in so speaking], I know not how, all his principles;[1361] while our
Paul declares, that “of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all
things,”[1362] showing that He is the beginning of the substance of all
things by the words “of Him,” and the bond of their subsistence by the
expression “through Him,” and their final end by the terms “to Him.” Of
a truth, God is of nothing. But when Celsus adds, that “He is not to be
reached by word,”[1363] I make a distinction, and say that if he means
the word that is in _us_—whether the word conceived in the mind, or the
word that is uttered[1364]—I, too, admit that God is not to be reached
by word. If, however, we attend to the passage, “In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”[1365] we are
of opinion that God is to be reached by _this_ Word, and is comprehended
not by Him only, but by any one whatever to whom He may reveal the
Father; and thus we shall prove the falsity of the assertion of Celsus,
when he says, “Neither is God to be reached by word.” The statement,
moreover, that “He cannot be expressed by name,” requires to be taken
with a distinction. If he means, indeed, that there is no word or
sign[1366] that can represent the attributes of God, the statement is
true, since there are many qualities which cannot be indicated by words.
Who, for example, could describe in words the difference betwixt the
quality of sweetness in a palm and that in a fig? And who could
distinguish and set forth in words the peculiar qualities of each
individual thing? It is no wonder, then, if in this way God cannot be
described by name. But if you take the phrase to mean that it is
possible to represent by words something of God’s attributes, in order
to lead the hearer by the hand,[1367] as it were, and so enable him to
comprehend something of God, so far as attainable by human nature, then
there is no absurdity in saying that “He _can_ be described by name.”
And we make a similar distinction with regard to the expression, “for He
has undergone no suffering that can be conveyed by words.” It _is_ true
that the Deity is beyond all suffering. And so much on this point.
Footnote 1361:
For αὐτοῦ Boherellus conjectures αὑτοῦ, and translates, “_Propria ipse
principia_, quæ sunt Epicuri, _subruens_.”
Footnote 1362:
Rom. xi. 36.
Footnote 1363:
οὐδὲ λογῷ ἐφικτός.
Footnote 1364:
εἴτε ἐνδιαθέτῳ εἴτε καὶ προφορικῷ.
Footnote 1365:
John i. 1.
Footnote 1366:
οὐδὲν τῶν ἐν λέξεσι καὶ σημαινομένοις.
Footnote 1367:
χειραγωγῆσαι.
Chapter LXVI.
Let us look also at his next statement, in which he introduces, as it
were, a certain person, who, after hearing what has been said, expresses
himself in the following manner, “How, then, shall I know God? and how
shall I learn the way that leads to Him? And how will you show Him to
me? Because now, indeed, you throw darkness before my eyes, and I see
nothing distinctly.” He then answers, as it were, the individual who is
thus perplexed, and thinks that he assigns the reason why darkness has
been poured upon the eyes of him who uttered the foregoing words, when
he asserts that “those whom one would lead forth out of darkness into
the brightness of light, being unable to withstand its splendours, have
their power of vision affected[1368] and injured, and so imagine that
they are smitten with blindness.” In answer to this, we would say that
all those indeed sit in darkness, and are rooted in it, who fix their
gaze upon the evil handiwork of painters, and moulders and sculptors,
and who will not look upwards, and ascend in thought from all visible
and sensible things, to the Creator of all things, who is light; while,
on the other hand, every one is in light who has followed the radiance
of the Word, who has shown in consequence of what ignorance, and
impiety, and want of knowledge of divine things these objects were
worshipped instead of God, and who has conducted the soul of him who
desires to be saved towards the uncreated God, who is over all. For “the
people that sat in darkness—the Gentiles—saw a great light, and to them
who sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up,”[1369]—the
God Jesus. No Christian, then, would give Celsus, or any accuser of the
divine Word, the answer, “How shall I know God?” for each one of them
knows God according to his capacity. And no one asks, “How shall I learn
the way which leads to Him?” because he has heard Him who says, “I am
the way, and the truth, and the life,”[1370] and has tasted, in the
course of the journey, the happiness which results from it. And not a
single Christian would say to Celsus, “How will you show me God?”
Footnote 1368:
κολάζεσθαι.
Footnote 1369:
Cf. Matt. iv. 16 and Isa. ix. 2.
Footnote 1370:
John xiv. 6.
Chapter LXVII.
The remark, indeed, was true which Celsus made, that any one, on hearing
his words, would answer, seeing that his words _are_ words of darkness,
“You pour darkness before my eyes.” Celsus verily, and those like him,
do desire to pour darkness before our eyes: we, however, by means of the
light of the Word, disperse the darkness of their impious opinions. The
Christian, indeed, could retort on Celsus, who says nothing that is
distinct or true, “I see nothing that is distinct among all _your_
statements.” It is not, therefore, “out of darkness” into “the
brightness of light” that Celsus leads us forth: he wishes, on the
contrary, to transport us from light into darkness, making the darkness
light and the light darkness, and exposing himself to the woe well
described by the prophet Isaiah in the following manner: “Woe unto them
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”[1371] But we, the
eyes of whose soul have been opened by the Word, and who see the
difference between light and darkness, prefer by all means to take our
stand “in the light,” and will have nothing to do with darkness at all.
The true light, moreover, being endued with life, knows to whom his full
splendours are to be manifested, and to whom his light; for he does not
display his brilliancy on account of the still existing weakness in the
eyes of the recipient. And if we must speak at all of “sight being
affected and injured,” what other eyes shall we say are in this
condition, than his who is involved in ignorance of God, and who is
prevented by his passions from seeing the truth? Christians, however, by
no means consider that they are blinded by the words of Celsus, or any
other who is opposed to the worship of God. But let those who perceive
that they are blinded by following multitudes who are in error, and
tribes of those who keep festivals to demons, draw near to the Word, who
can bestow the gift of sight,[1372] in order that, like those poor and
blind who had thrown themselves down by the wayside, and who were healed
by Jesus because they said to Him, “Son of David, have mercy upon me,”
they too may receive mercy and recover their eyesight,[1373] fresh and
beautiful, as the Word of God can create it.
Footnote 1371:
Cf. Isa. v. 20.
Footnote 1372:
ὀφθαλμοὺς.
Footnote 1373:
ὀφθαλμοὺς.
Chapter LXVIII.
Accordingly, if Celsus were to ask us how we think we know God, and how
we shall be saved by Him, we would answer that the Word of God, which
entered into those who seek Him, or who accept Him when He appears, is
able to make known and to reveal the Father, who was not seen [by any
one] before the appearance of the Word. And who else is able to save and
conduct the soul of man to the God of all things, save God the Word,
who, “being in the beginning with God,” became flesh for the sake of
those who had cleaved to the flesh, and had become as flesh, that He
might be received by those who could not behold Him, inasmuch as He was
the Word, and was with God, and was God? And discoursing in human
form,[1374] and announcing Himself as flesh, He calls to Himself those
who are flesh, that He may in the first place cause them to be
transformed according to the Word that was made flesh, and afterwards
may lead them upwards to behold Him as He was before He became flesh; so
that they, receiving the benefit, and ascending from their great
introduction to Him, which was according to the flesh, say, “Even if we
have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more.”
Therefore He became flesh, and having become flesh, “He tabernacled
among us,” not dwelling without us; and after tabernacling and dwelling
_within_ us, He did not continue in the form in which He first presented
Himself, but caused us to ascend to the lofty mountain of His word, and
showed us His own glorious form, and the splendour of His garments; and
not His own form alone, but that also of the spiritual law, which is
Moses, seen in glory along with Jesus. He showed to us, moreover, all
prophecy, which did not perish even after His incarnation, but was
received up into heaven, and whose symbol was Elijah. And he who beheld
these things could say, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the
only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”[1375] Celsus,
then, has exhibited considerable ignorance in the imaginary answer to
his question which he puts into our mouth, “How we think we can know
God? and how we know we shall be saved by Him?” for our answer is what
we have just stated.
Footnote 1374:
σωματικῶς.
Footnote 1375:
Cf. John i. 14.
Chapter LXIX.
Celsus, however, asserts that the answer which we give is based upon a
probable conjecture,[1376] admitting that he describes our answer in the
following terms: “Since God is great and difficult to see,[1377] He put
His own Spirit into a body that resembled ours, and sent it down to us,
that we might be enabled to hear Him and become acquainted with Him.”
But the God and Father of all things is not the only being that is great
in our judgment; for He has imparted [a share] of Himself and His
greatness to His only-begotten and first-born of every creature, in
order that He, being the image of the invisible God, might preserve,
even in His greatness, the image of the Father. For it was not possible
that there could exist a well-proportioned,[1378] so to speak, and
beautiful image of the invisible God, which did not at the same time
preserve the image of His greatness. God, moreover, is in our judgment
invisible, because He is not a body, while He _can_ be seen by those who
see with the heart, that is, the understanding; not indeed with any kind
of heart, but with one which is pure. For it is inconsistent with the
fitness of things that a polluted heart should look upon God; for that
must be itself pure which would worthily behold that which is pure. Let
it be granted, indeed, that God is “difficult to see,” yet He is not the
only being who is so; for His Only-begotten also is “difficult to see.”
For God the Word is “difficult to see,” and so also is His[1379] wisdom,
by which God created all things. For who is capable of seeing the wisdom
which is displayed in each individual part of the whole system of
things, and by which God created every individual thing? It was not,
then, because God was “difficult to see” that He sent God His Son to be
an object “easy to be seen.”[1380] And because Celsus does not
understand this, he has represented us as saying, “Because God was
‘difficult to see,’ He put His own Spirit in a body resembling ours, and
sent it down to us, that we might be enabled to hear Him and become
acquainted with Him.” Now, as we have stated, the Son also is “difficult
to see,” because He is God the Word, through whom all things were made,
and who “tabernacled amongst us.”
Footnote 1376:
εἰκότι στοχασμῷ.
Footnote 1377:
δυσθεώρητος.
Footnote 1378:
σύμμετρον.
Footnote 1379:
For οὑτωσὶ we have adopted the conjecture of Guietus, τούτου.
Footnote 1380:
ὡς εὐθεώρητον.
Chapter LXX.
If Celsus, indeed, had understood our teaching regarding the Spirit of
God, and had known that “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these
are the sons of God,”[1381] he would not have returned to himself the
answer which he represents as coming from us, that “God put His own
Spirit into a body, and sent it down to us;” for God is perpetually
bestowing of His own Spirit to those who are capable of receiving it,
although it is not by way of division and separation that He dwells in
[the hearts of] the deserving. Nor is the Spirit, in our opinion, a
“body,” any more than fire is a “body,” which God is said to be in the
passage, “Our God is a consuming fire.”[1382] For all these are
figurative expressions, employed to denote the nature of “intelligent
beings” by means of familiar and corporeal terms. In the same way, too,
if sins are called “wood, and straw, and stubble,” we shall not maintain
that sins are corporeal; and if blessings are termed “gold, and silver,
and precious stones,”[1383] we shall not maintain that blessings are
“corporeal;” so also, if God be said to be a fire that consumes wood,
and straw, and stubble, and all substance[1384] of sin, we shall not
understand Him to be a “body,” so neither do we understand Him to be a
body if He should be called “fire.” In this way, if God be called
“spirit,”[1385] we do not mean that He is a “body.” For it is the custom
of Scripture to give to “intelligent beings” the names of “spirits” and
“spiritual things,” by way of distinction from those which are the
objects of “sense;” as when Paul says, “But our sufficiency is of God,
who hath also made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the
letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth
life,”[1386] where by the “letter” he means that “exposition of
Scripture which is apparent to the senses,”[1387] while by the “spirit”
that which is the object of the “understanding.” It is the same, too,
with the expression, “God is a Spirit.” And because the prescriptions of
the law were obeyed both by Samaritans and Jews in a corporeal and
literal[1388] manner, our Saviour said to the Samaritan woman, “The hour
is coming, when neither in Jerusalem, nor in this mountain, shall ye
worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must
worship Him in spirit and in truth.”[1389] And by these words He taught
men that God must be worshipped not in the flesh, and with fleshly
sacrifices, but in the spirit. And He will be understood to be a Spirit
in proportion as the worship rendered to Him is rendered in spirit, and
with understanding. It is not, however, with images[1390] that we are to
worship the Father, but “in truth,” which “came by Jesus Christ,” after
the giving of the law by Moses. For when we turn to the Lord (and the
Lord is a Spirit[1391]), He takes away the veil which lies upon the
heart when Moses is read.
Footnote 1381:
Rom. viii. 14.
Footnote 1382:
Cf. Heb. xii. 29.
Footnote 1383:
Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12.
Footnote 1384:
πᾶσαν οὐσίαν.
Footnote 1385:
πνεῦμα. There is an allusion to the two meanings of πνεῦμα, “wind” and
“spirit.”
Footnote 1386:
2 Cor. iii. 5, 6.
Footnote 1387:
τὴν αἰσθητὴν ἐκδοχὴν.
Footnote 1388:
τυπικῶς here evidently must have the above meaning.
Footnote 1389:
Cf. John iv. 21, 24.
Footnote 1390:
ἐν τύποις.
Footnote 1391:
Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 17.
Chapter LXXI.
Celsus accordingly, as not understanding the doctrine relating to the
Spirit of God (“for the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned”[1392]), weaves together
[such a web] as pleases himself,[1393] imagining that we, in calling God
a Spirit, differ in no respect in this particular from the Stoics among
the Greeks, who maintain that “God is a Spirit, diffused through all
things, and containing all things within Himself.” Now the
superintendence and providence of God does extend through all things,
but not in the way that spirit does, according to the Stoics. Providence
indeed contains all things that are its objects, and comprehends them
all, but not as a containing body includes its contents, because they
also are “body,”[1394] but as a _divine_ power does it comprehend what
it contains. According to the philosophers of the Porch, indeed, who
assert that principles are “corporeal,” and who on that account make all
things perishable, and who venture even to make the God of all things
capable of perishing, the very Word of God, who descends even to the
lowest of mankind, would be—did it not appear to them to be too gross an
incongruity[1395]—nothing else than a “corporeal” spirit; whereas, in
our opinion,—who endeavour to demonstrate that the rational soul is
superior to all “corporeal” nature, and that it is an invisible
substance, and incorporeal,—God the Word, by whom all things were made,
who came, in order that all things might be made by the Word, not to men
only, but to what are deemed the very lowest of things, under the
dominion of nature alone, would be no body. The Stoics, then, may
consign all things to destruction by fire; we, however, know of no
incorporeal substance that is destructible by fire, nor [do we believe]
that the soul of man, or the substance of “angels,” or of “thrones,” or
“dominions,” or “principalities,” or “powers,” can be dissolved by fire.
Footnote 1392:
Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 14.
Footnote 1393:
ἑαυτῷ συνάπτει.
Footnote 1394:
οὐχ ὡς σῶμα δὲ περιέχον περιέχει, ὅτι καὶ σῶμα ἐστι τὸ περιεχόμενον.
Footnote 1395:
πάνυ ἀπεμφαῖνον.
Chapter LXXII.
It is therefore in vain that Celsus asserts, as one who knows not the
nature of the Spirit of God, that “as the Son of God, who existed in a
human body, is a Spirit, this very Son of God would not be immortal.” He
next becomes confused in his statements, as if there were some of us who
did not admit that God is a Spirit, but maintain that only with regard
to His Son, and he thinks that he can answer us by saying that there “is
no kind of spirit which lasts for ever.” This is much the same as if,
when we term God a “consuming fire,” he were to say that there “is no
kind of fire which lasts for ever;” not observing the sense in which we
say that our God is a fire, and what the things are which He consumes,
viz. sins, and wickedness. For it becomes a God of goodness, after each
individual has shown, by his efforts, what kind of combatant he has
been, to consume vice by the fire of His chastisements. He proceeds, in
the next place, to assume what we do not maintain, that “God must
necessarily have given up the ghost;” from which also it follows that
Jesus could not have risen again with His body. For God would not have
received back the spirit which He had surrendered after it had been
stained by contact with the body. It is foolish, however, for us to
answer statements as ours which were never made by us.
Chapter LXXIII.
He proceeds to repeat himself, and after saying a great deal which he
had said before, and ridiculing the birth of God from a virgin,—to which
we have already replied as we best could,—he adds the following: “If God
had wished to send down His Spirit from Himself, what need was there to
breathe it into the womb of a woman? For as one who knew already how to
form men, He could also have fashioned a body for this person, without
casting His own Spirit into so much pollution;[1396] and in this way He
would not have been received with incredulity, if He had derived His
existence immediately from above.” He has made these remarks, because he
knows not the pure and virgin birth, unaccompanied by any corruption, of
that body which was to minister to the salvation of men. For, quoting
the sayings of the Stoics,[1397] and affecting not to know the doctrine
about “things indifferent,” he thinks that the divine nature was cast
amid pollution, and was stained either by being in the body of a woman,
until a body was formed around it, or by assuming a body. And in this he
acts like those who imagine that the sun’s rays are polluted by dung and
by foul-smelling bodies, and do not remain pure amid such things. If,
however, according to the view of Celsus, the body of Jesus had been
fashioned without generation, those who beheld the body would at once
have believed that it had not been formed by generation; and yet an
object, when seen, does not at the same time indicate the nature of that
from which it has derived its origin. For example, suppose that there
were some honey [placed before one] which had not been manufactured by
bees, no one could tell from the taste or sight that it was not their
workmanship, because the honey which comes from bees does not make known
its origin by the senses,[1398] but experience alone can tell that it
does not proceed from them. In the same way, too, experience teaches
that wine comes from the vine, for taste does not enable us to
distinguish [the wine] which comes from the vine. In the same manner,
therefore, the visible[1399] body does not make known the manner of its
existence. And you will be induced to accept this view,[1400] by
[regarding] the heavenly bodies, whose existence and splendour we
perceive as we gaze at them; and yet, I presume, their appearance does
not suggest to us whether they are created or uncreated; and accordingly
different opinions have existed on these points. And yet those who say
that they are created are not agreed as to the manner of their creation,
for their appearance does not suggest it, although the force of
reason[1401] may have discovered that they are created, and how their
creation was effected.
Footnote 1396:
εἰς τοσοῦτον μίασμα.
Footnote 1397:
Cf. Book iv. cc. 14 and 68.
Footnote 1398:
τῇ αἰσθήσει τὴν ἀρχὴν.
Footnote 1399:
τὸ αἰσθητὸν σῶμα.
Footnote 1400:
προσαχθήσῃ δὲ τῷ λεγομένῳ.
Footnote 1401:
κἂν βιασάμενος ὁ λόγος εὕρῃ.
Chapter LXXIV.
After this he returns to the subject of Marcion’s opinions (having
already spoken frequently of them), and states some of them correctly,
while others he has misunderstood; these, however, it is not necessary
for us to answer or refute. Again, after this he brings forward the
various arguments that may be urged on Marcion’s behalf, and also
against him, enumerating what the opinions are which exonerate him from
the charges, and what expose him to them; and when he desires to support
the statement which declares that Jesus has been the subject of
prophecy,—in order to found a charge against Marcion and his
followers,—he distinctly asks, “How could he, who was punished in such a
manner, be shown to be God’s Son, unless these things had been predicted
of him?” He next proceeds to jest, and, as his custom is, to pour
ridicule upon the subject, introducing “two sons of God, one the son of
the Creator,[1402] and the other the son of Marcion’s God; and he
portrays their single combats, saying that the Theomachies of the
Fathers are like the battles between quails;[1403] or that the Fathers,
becoming useless through age, and falling into their dotage,[1404] do
not meddle at all with one another, but leave their sons to fight it
out.” The remark which he made formerly we will turn against himself:
“What old woman would not be ashamed to lull a child to sleep with such
stories as he has inserted in the work which he entitles _A True
Discourse?_ For when he ought seriously[1405] to apply himself to
argument, he leaves serious argument aside, and betakes himself to
jesting and buffoonery, imagining that he is writing mimes or scoffing
verses; not observing that such a method of procedure defeats his
purpose, which is to make us abandon Christianity and give in our
adherence to his opinions, which, perhaps, had they been stated with
some degree of gravity,[1406] would have appeared more likely to
convince, whereas, since he continues to ridicule, and scoff, and play
the buffoon, we answer that it is because he has no argument of
weight[1407] (for such he neither had, nor could understand) that he has
betaken himself to such drivelling.”[1408]
Footnote 1402:
τοῦ δημιουργοῦ.
Footnote 1403:
ὀρτύγων.
Footnote 1404:
ληροῦντας.
Footnote 1405:
πραγματικῶς.
Footnote 1406:
ἐσεμνολόγει.
Footnote 1407:
σεμνῶν λόγων.
Footnote 1408:
τοσαύτην φλυαρίαν.
Chapter LXXV.
To the preceding remarks he adds the following: “Since a divine Spirit
inhabited the body [of Jesus], it must certainly have been different
from that of other beings, in respect of grandeur, or beauty, or
strength, or voice, or impressiveness,[1409] or persuasiveness. For it
is impossible that He, to whom was imparted some divine quality beyond
other beings, should not differ from others; whereas this person did not
differ in any respect from another, but was, as they report, little, and
ill-favoured, and ignoble.”[1410] Now it is evident by these words, that
when Celsus wishes to bring a charge against Jesus, he adduces the
sacred writings, as one who believed them to be writings apparently
fitted to afford a handle for a charge against Him; but wherever, in the
same writings, statements would appear to be made opposed to those
charges which are adduced, he pretends not even to know them! There are,
indeed, admitted to be recorded some statements respecting the body of
Jesus having been “ill-favoured;” not, however, “ignoble,” as has been
stated, nor is there any certain evidence that he was “little.” The
language of Isaiah runs as follows, who prophesied regarding Him that He
would come and visit the multitude, not in comeliness of form, nor in
any surpassing beauty: “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom
was the arm of the Lord revealed? He made announcement before Him, as a
child, as a root in a thirsty ground. He has no form nor glory, and we
beheld Him, and He had no form nor beauty; but His form was without
honour, and inferior to that of the sons of men.”[1411] These passages,
then, Celsus listened to, because he thought they were of use to him in
bringing a charge against Jesus; but he paid no attention to the words
of the 45th Psalm, and why it is then said, “Gird Thy sword upon Thy
thigh, O most mighty, with Thy comeliness and beauty, and continue, and
prosper, and reign.”[1412]
Footnote 1409:
κατάπληξιν.
Footnote 1410:
ἀγενὲς.
Footnote 1411:
Cf. Isa. liii. 1-3 (LXX.).
Footnote 1412:
Cf. Ps. xlv. 3, 4 (LXX.).
Chapter LXXVI.
Let it be supposed, however, that he had not read the prophecy, or that
he _had_ read it, but had been drawn away by those who misinterpreted it
as not being spoken of Jesus Christ. What has he to say of the Gospel,
in the narratives of which Jesus ascended up into a high mountain, and
was transfigured before the disciples, and was seen in glory, when both
Moses and Elias, “being seen in glory, spake of the decease which He was
about to accomplish at Jerusalem?” or when the prophet says, “We beheld
Him, and He had no form nor beauty,” etc.? and Celsus accepts this
prophecy as referring to Jesus, being blinded in so accepting it, and
not seeing that it is a great proof that the Jesus who appeared to be
“without form” was the Son of God, that His very appearance should have
been made the subject of prophecy many years before His birth. But if
another prophet speak of His comeliness and beauty, he will no longer
accept the prophecy as referring to Christ! And if it were to be clearly
ascertained from the Gospels that “He had no form nor beauty, but that
His appearance was without honour, and inferior to that of the sons of
men,” it might be said that it was not with reference to the prophetic
writings, but to the Gospels, that Celsus made his remarks. But now, as
neither the Gospels nor the apostolic writings indicate that “He had no
form nor beauty,” it is evident that we must accept the declaration of
the prophets as true of Christ, and this will prevent the charge against
Jesus from being advanced.[1413]
Footnote 1413:
προβαίνειν.
Chapter LXXVII.
But again, how did he who said, “Since a divine Spirit inhabited the
body [of Jesus], it must certainly have been different from that of
other beings in respect of grandeur, or voice, or strength, or
impressiveness, or persuasiveness,” not observe the changing relation of
His body according to the capacity of the spectators (and therefore its
corresponding utility), inasmuch as it appeared to each one of such a
nature as it was requisite for him to behold it? Moreover, it is not a
subject of wonder that the matter, which is by nature susceptible of
being altered and changed, and of being transformed into anything which
the Creator chooses, and is capable of receiving all the qualities which
the Artificer desires, should at one time possess a quality, agreeably
to which it is said, “He had no form nor beauty,” and at another, one so
glorious, and majestic, and marvellous, that the spectators of such
surpassing loveliness—three disciples who had ascended [the mount] with
Jesus—should fall upon their faces. He will say, however, that these are
inventions, and in no respect different from myths, as are also the
other marvels related of Jesus; which objection we have answered at
greater length in what has gone before. But there is also something
mystical in this doctrine, which announces that the varying appearances
of Jesus are to be referred to the nature of the divine Word, who does
not show Himself in the same manner to the multitude as He does to those
who are capable of following Him to the high mountain which we have
mentioned; for to those who still remain below, and are not yet prepared
to ascend, the Word “has neither form nor beauty,” because to such
persons His form is “without honour,” and inferior to the words given
forth by men, which are figuratively termed “sons of men.” For we might
say that the words of philosophers—who are “sons of men”—appear far more
beautiful than the Word of God, who is proclaimed to the multitude, and
who also exhibits [what is called] the “foolishness of preaching,” and
on account of this apparent “foolishness of preaching” those who look at
this alone say, “We saw Him, but He had no form nor beauty.” To those,
indeed, who have received power to follow Him, in order that they may
attend Him even when He ascends to the “lofty mount,” He _has_ a diviner
appearance, which they behold, if there happens to be [among them] a
Peter, who has received within himself the edifice of the church based
upon the Word, and who has gained such a habit [of goodness] that none
of the gates of Hades will prevail against him, having been exalted by
the Word from the gates of death, that he may “publish the praises of
God in the gates of the daughter of Sion,” and any others who have
derived their birth from impressive preaching,[1414] and who are not at
all inferior to “sons of thunder.” But how can Celsus and the enemies of
the divine Word, and those who have not examined the doctrines of
Christianity in the spirit of truth, know the meaning of the different
appearances of Jesus? And I refer also to the different stages of His
life, and to any actions performed by Him before His sufferings, and
after His resurrection from the dead.
Footnote 1414:
καὶ εἴ τινές εἰσιν ἐκ λόγων τὴν γένεσιν λαχόντες μεγαλοφώνων.
Chapter LXXVIII.
Celsus next makes certain observations of the following nature: “Again,
if God, like Jupiter in the comedy, should, on awaking from a lengthened
slumber, desire to rescue the human race from evil, why did He send this
Spirit of which you speak into one corner [of the earth]? He ought to
have breathed it alike into many bodies, and have sent them out into all
the world. Now the comic poet, to cause laughter in the theatre, wrote
that Jupiter, after awakening, despatched Mercury to the Athenians and
Lacedæmonians; but do not you think that you have made the Son of God
more ridiculous in sending Him to the Jews?” Observe in such language as
this the irreverent character of Celsus, who, unlike a philosopher,
takes the writer of a comedy, whose business is to cause laughter, and
compares our God, the Creator of all things, to the being who, as
represented in the play, on awaking, despatches Mercury [on an errand]!
We stated, indeed, in what precedes, that it was not as if awakening
from a lengthened slumber that God sent Jesus to the human race, who has
now, for good reasons, fulfilled the economy of His incarnation, but who
has always conferred benefits upon the human race. For no noble deed has
ever been performed amongst men, where the divine Word did not visit the
souls of those who were capable, although for a little time, of
admitting such operations of the divine Word. Moreover, the advent of
Jesus apparently to one corner [of the earth] was founded on good
reasons, since it was necessary that He who was the subject of prophecy
should make His appearance among those who had become acquainted with
the doctrine of one God, and who perused the writings of His prophets,
and who had come to know the announcement of Christ, and that He should
come to them at a time when the Word was about to be diffused from one
corner over the whole world.
Chapter LXXIX.
And therefore there was no need that there should everywhere exist many
bodies, and many spirits like Jesus, in order that the whole world of
men might be enlightened by the Word of God. For the one Word was
enough, having arisen as the “Sun of righteousness,” to send forth from
Judea His coming rays into the soul of all who were willing to receive
Him. But if any one desires to see many bodies filled with a divine
Spirit, similar to the one Christ, ministering to the salvation of men
everywhere, let him take note of those who teach the gospel of Jesus in
all lands in soundness of doctrine and uprightness of life, and who are
themselves termed “christs” by the Holy Scriptures, in the passage,
“Touch not mine anointed,[1415] and do not my prophets any harm.”[1416]
For as we have heard that Antichrist cometh, and yet have learned that
there are many antichrists in the world, in the same way, knowing that
Christ has come, we see that, owing to Him, there are many christs in
the world, who, like Him, have loved righteousness and hated iniquity,
and therefore God, the God of Christ, anointed them also with the “oil
of gladness.” But inasmuch as He loved righteousness and hated iniquity
above those who were His partners,[1417] He also obtained the
first-fruits of His anointing, and, if we must so term it, the entire
unction of the oil of gladness; while they who were His partners shared
also in His unction, in proportion to their individual capacity.
Therefore, since Christ is the head of the church, so that Christ and
the church form one body, the ointment descended from the head to the
beard of Aaron,—the symbols of the perfect man,—and this ointment in its
descent reached to the very skirt of his garment. This is my answer to
the irreverent language of Celsus when he says, “He ought to have
breathed [His Spirit] alike into many bodies, and have sent it forth
into all the world.” The comic poet, indeed, to cause laughter, has
represented Jupiter asleep and awaking from slumber, and despatching
Mercury to the Greeks; but the Word, knowing that the nature of God is
unaffected by sleep, may teach us that God administers in due season,
and as right reason demands, the affairs of the world. It is not,
however, a matter of surprise that, owing to the greatness and
incomprehensibility[1418] of the divine judgments, ignorant persons
should make mistakes, and Celsus among them. There is therefore nothing
ridiculous in the Son of God having been sent to the Jews, amongst whom
the prophets had appeared, in order that, making a commencement among
them in a bodily shape, He might arise with might and power upon a world
of souls, which no longer desired to remain deserted by God.
Footnote 1415:
τῶν χριστῶν μου.
Footnote 1416:
Cf. 1 Chron. xvi. 22 and Ps. cv. 15.
Footnote 1417:
τοὺς μετόχους αὐτοῦ.
Footnote 1418:
δυσδιηγήτους τὰς κρίσεις.
Chapter LXXX.
After this, it seemed proper to Celsus to term the Chaldeans a most
divinely-inspired nation from the very earliest times,[1419] from whom
the delusive system of astrology[1420] has spread abroad among men. Nay,
he ranks the Magi also in the same category, from whom the art of magic
derived its name and has been transmitted to other nations, to the
corruption and destruction of those who employ it. In the preceding part
of this work, [we mentioned] that, in the opinion even of Celsus, the
Egyptians also were guilty of error, because they had indeed solemn
enclosures around what they considered their temples, while within them
there was nothing save apes, or crocodiles, or goats, or asps, or some
other animal; but on the present occasion it pleases him to speak of the
Egyptian people too as most divinely inspired, and that, too, from the
earliest times,—perhaps because they made war upon the Jews from an
early date. The Persians, moreover, who marry their own mothers, and
have intercourse with their own daughters, are, in the opinion of
Celsus, an inspired race; nay, even the Indians are so, some of whom, in
the preceding, he mentioned as eaters of human flesh. To the Jews,
however, especially those of ancient times, who employ none of these
practices, he did not merely refuse the name of inspired, but declared
that they would immediately perish. And this prediction he uttered
respecting them, as being doubtless endued with prophetic power, not
observing that the whole history of the Jews, and their ancient and
venerable polity, were administered by God; and that it is by their fall
that salvation has come to the Gentiles, and that “their fall is the
riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the
Gentiles,”[1421] until the fulness of the Gentiles come, that after that
the whole of Israel, whom Celsus does not know, may be saved.
Footnote 1419:
ἐξ ἀρχῆς.
Footnote 1420:
γενεθλιαλογία.
Footnote 1421:
Cf. Rom. xi. 11, 12.
Chapter LXXXI.
I do not understand, however, how he should say of God, that although
“knowing all things, He was not aware of this, that He was sending His
Son amongst wicked men, who were both to be guilty of sin, and to
inflict punishment upon Him.” Certainly he appears, in the present
instance, to have forgotten that all the sufferings which Jesus was to
undergo were foreseen by the Spirit of God, and foretold by His
prophets; from which it does not follow that “God did not know that He
was sending His Son amongst wicked and sinful men, who were also to
inflict punishment upon Him.” He immediately adds, however, that “our
defence on this point is that all these things were predicted.” But as
our sixth book has now attained sufficient dimensions, we shall stop
here, and begin, God willing, the argument of the seventh, in which we
shall consider the reasons which he thinks furnish an answer to our
statement, that everything regarding Jesus was foretold by the prophets;
and as these are numerous, and require to be answered at length, we
wished neither to cut the subject short, in consequence of the size of
the present book, nor, in order to avoid doing so, to swell this sixth
book beyond its proper proportions.
BOOK VII.
Chapter I.
In the six former books we have endeavoured, reverend brother Ambrosius,
according to our ability to meet the charges brought by Celsus against
the Christians, and have as far as possible passed over nothing without
first subjecting it to a full and close examination. And now, while we
enter upon the seventh book, we call upon God through Jesus Christ, whom
Celsus accuses, that He who is the truth of God would shed light into
our hearts and scatter the darkness of error, in accordance with that
saying of the prophet which we now offer as our prayer, “Destroy them by
Thy truth.”[1422] For it is evidently the words and reasonings opposed
to the truth that God destroys by His truth; so that when these are
destroyed, all who are delivered from deception may go on with the
prophet to say, “I will freely sacrifice unto Thee,”[1423] and may offer
to the Most High a reasonable and smokeless sacrifice.
Footnote 1422:
Ps. liv. 5.
Footnote 1423:
Ps. liv. 6.
Chapter II.
Celsus now sets himself to combat the views of those who say that the
Jewish prophets foretold events which happened in the life of Christ
Jesus. At the outset let us refer to a notion he has, that those who
assume the existence of another God besides the God of the Jews have no
ground on which to answer his objections; while we who recognise the
same God rely for our defence on the prophecies which were delivered
concerning Jesus Christ. His words are: “Let us see how they can raise a
defence. To those who admit another God, no defence is possible; and
they who recognise the same God will always fall back upon the same
reason, ‘This and that must have happened.’ And why? ‘Because it had
been predicted long before.’” To this we answer, that the arguments
recently raised by Celsus against Jesus and Christians were so utterly
feeble, that they might easily be overthrown even by those who are
impious enough to bring in another God. Indeed, were it not dangerous to
give to the weak any excuse for embracing false notions, we could
furnish the answer ourselves, and show Celsus how unfounded is his
opinion, that those who admit another God are not in a position to meet
his arguments. However, let us for the present confine ourselves to a
defence of the prophets, in continuation of what we have said on the
subject before.
Chapter III.
Celsus goes on to say of us: “They set no value on the oracles of the
Pythian priestess, of the priests of Dodona, of Clarus, of Branchidæ, of
Jupiter Ammon, and of a multitude of others; although under their
guidance we may say that colonies were sent forth, and the whole world
peopled. But those sayings which were uttered or not uttered in Judea,
after the manner of that country, as indeed they are still delivered
among the people of Phœnicia and Palestine—these they look upon as
marvellous sayings, and unchangeably true.” In regard to the oracles
here enumerated, we reply that it would be possible for us to gather
from the writings of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school not a few
things to overthrow the authority of the Pythian and the other oracles.
From Epicurus also, and his followers, we could quote passages to show
that even among the Greeks themselves there were some who utterly
discredited the oracles which were recognised and admired throughout the
whole of Greece. But let it be granted that the responses delivered by
the Pythian and other oracles were not the utterances of false men who
pretended to a divine inspiration; and let us see if, after all, we
cannot convince any sincere inquirers that there is no necessity to
attribute these oracular responses to any divinities, but that, on the
other hand, they may be traced to wicked demons—to spirits which are at
enmity with the human race, and which in this way wish to hinder the
soul from rising upwards, from following the path of virtue, and from
returning to God in sincere piety. It is said of the Pythian priestess,
whose oracle seems to have been the most celebrated, that when she sat
down at the mouth of the Castalian cave, the prophetic spirit of Apollo
entered her private parts; and when she was filled with it, she gave
utterance to responses which are regarded with awe as divine truths.
Judge by this whether that spirit does not show its profane and impure
nature, by choosing to enter the soul of the prophetess not through the
more becoming medium of the bodily pores which are both open and
invisible, but by means of what no modest man would ever see or speak
of. And this occurs not once or twice, which would be more permissible,
but as often as she was believed to receive inspiration from Apollo.
Moreover, it is not the part of a divine spirit to drive the prophetess
into such a state of ecstasy and madness that she loses control of
herself. For he who is under the influence of the Divine Spirit ought to
be the first to receive the beneficial effects; and these ought not to
be first enjoyed by the persons who consult the oracle about the
concerns of natural or civil life, or for purposes of temporal gain or
interest; and, moreover, that should be the time of clearest perception,
when a person is in close intercourse with the Deity.
Chapter IV.
Accordingly, we can show from an examination of the sacred Scriptures,
that the Jewish prophets, who were enlightened as far as was necessary
for their prophetic work by the Spirit of God, were the first to enjoy
the benefit of the inspiration; and by the contact—if I may so say—of
the Holy Spirit they became clearer in mind, and their souls were filled
with a brighter light. And the body no longer served as a hindrance to a
virtuous life; for to that which we call “the lust of the flesh” it was
deadened. For we are persuaded that the Divine Spirit “mortifies the
deeds of the body,” and destroys that enmity against God which the
carnal passions serve to excite. If, then, the Pythian priestess is
beside herself when she prophesies, what spirit must that be which fills
her mind and clouds her judgment with darkness, unless it be of the same
order with those demons which many Christians cast out of persons
possessed with them? And this, we may observe, they do without the use
of any curious arts of magic, or incantations, but merely by prayer and
simple adjurations which the plainest person can use. Because for the
most part it is unlettered persons who perform this work; thus making
manifest the grace which is in the word of Christ, and the despicable
weakness of demons, which, in order to be overcome and driven out of the
bodies and souls of men, do not require the power and wisdom of those
who are mighty in argument, and most learned in matters of faith.
Chapter V.
Moreover, if it is believed not only among Christians and Jews, but also
by many others among the Greeks and barbarians, that the human soul
lives and subsists after its separation from the body; and if reason
supports the idea that pure souls which are not weighed down with sin as
with a weight of lead ascend on high to the region of purer and more
etherial bodies, leaving here below their grosser bodies along with
their impurities; whereas souls that are polluted and dragged down to
the earth by their sins, so that they are unable even to breathe
upwards, wander hither and thither, at some times about sepulchres,
where they appear as the apparitions of shadowy spirits, at others among
other objects on the ground;—if this is so, what are we to think of
those spirits that are attached for entire ages, as I may say, to
particular dwellings and places, whether by a sort of magical force or
by their own natural wickedness? Are we not compelled by reason to set
down as evil such spirits as employ the power of prophesying—a power in
itself neither good nor bad—for the purpose of deceiving men, and thus
turn them away from God, and from the purity of His service? It is
moreover evident that this is their character, when we add that they
delight in the blood of victims, and in the smoke and odour of
sacrifices, and that they feed their bodies on these, and that they take
pleasure in such haunts as these, as though they sought in them the
sustenance of their lives; in this resembling those depraved men who
despise the purity of a life apart from the senses, and who have no
inclination except for the pleasures of the body, and for that earthly
and bodily life in which these pleasures are found. If the Delphian
Apollo were a god, as the Greeks suppose, would he not rather have
chosen as his prophet some wise man? or if such an one was not to be
found, then one who was endeavouring to become wise? How came he not to
prefer a man to a woman for the utterance of his prophecies? And if he
preferred the latter sex, as though he could only find pleasure in the
breast of a woman, why did he not choose among women a virgin to
interpret his will?
Chapter VI.
But no; the Pythian, so much admired among the Greeks, judged no wise
man, nay, no man at all, worthy of the divine possession, as they call
it. And among women he did not choose a virgin, or one recommended by
her wisdom, or by her attainments in philosophy; but he selects a common
woman. Perhaps the better class of men were too good to become the
subjects of the inspiration. Besides, if he were a god, he should have
employed his prophetic power as a bait, so to speak, with which he might
draw men to a change of life, and to the practice of virtue. But history
nowhere makes mention of anything of the kind. For if the oracle did
call Socrates the wisest of all men, it takes from the value of that
eulogy by what is said in regard to Euripides and Sophocles. The words
are:
“Sophocles is wise, and Euripides is wiser,
But wiser than all men is Socrates.”[1424]
As, then, he gives the designation “wise” to the tragic poets, it is not
on account of his philosophy that he holds up Socrates to veneration, or
because of his love of truth and virtue. It is poor praise of Socrates
to say that he prefers him to men who for a paltry reward compete upon
the stage, and who by their representations excite the spectators at one
time to tears and grief, and at another to unseemly laughter (for such
is the intention of the satiric drama). And perhaps it was not so much
in regard to his philosophy that he called Socrates the wisest of all
men, as on account of the victims which he sacrificed to him and the
other demons. For it seems that the demons pay more regard in
distributing their favours to the sacrifices which are offered them than
to deeds of virtue. Accordingly, Homer, the best of the poets, who
describes what usually took place, when, wishing to show us what most
influenced the demons to grant an answer to the wishes of their
votaries, introduces Chryses, who, for a few garlands and the thighs of
bulls and goats, obtained an answer to his prayers for his daughter
Chryseis, so that the Greeks were driven by a pestilence to restore her
back to him. And I remember reading in the book of a certain
Pythagorean, when writing on the hidden meanings in that poet, that the
prayer of Chryses to Apollo, and the plague which Apollo afterwards sent
upon the Greeks, are proofs that Homer knew of certain evil demons who
delight in the smoke of sacrifices, and who, to reward those who offer
them, grant in answer to their prayers the destruction of others. “He,”
that is, Jupiter, “who rules over wintry Dodona, where his prophets have
ever unwashed feet, and sleep upon the ground,”[1425] has rejected the
male sex, and, as Celsus observes, employs the women of Dodona for the
prophetic office. Granting that there are oracles similar to these, as
that at Clarus, another in Branchidæ, another in the temple of Jupiter
Ammon, or anywhere else; yet how shall it be proved that these are gods,
and not demons?
Footnote 1424:
Suidas in Σοφός.
Footnote 1425:
Homer, _Iliad_, xvi. 234, etc.
Chapter VII.
In regard to the prophets among the Jews, some of them were wise men
before they became divinely inspired prophets, while others became wise
by the illumination which their minds received when divinely inspired.
They were selected by Divine Providence to receive the Divine Spirit,
and to be the depositaries of His holy oracles, on the ground of their
leading a life of almost unapproachable excellence, intrepid, noble,
unmoved by danger or death. For reason teaches that such ought to be the
character of the prophets of the Most High, in comparison with which the
firmness of Antisthenes, Crates, and Diogenes will seem but as child’s
play. It was therefore for their firm adherence to truth, and their
faithfulness in the reproof of the wicked, that they were “stoned; they
were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they
wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted,
tormented; they wandered in deserts and in mountains, and in dens and
caves of the earth, of whom the world was not worthy:”[1426] for they
looked always to God and to His blessings, which, being invisible, and
not to be perceived by the senses, are eternal. We have the history of
the life of each of the prophets; but it will be enough at present to
direct attention to the life of Moses, whose prophecies are contained in
the law; to that of Jeremiah, as it is given in the book which bears his
name; to that of Isaiah, who with unexampled austerity walked naked and
barefooted for the space of three years. Read and consider the severe
life of those children, Daniel and his companions, how they abstained
from flesh, and lived on water and pulse. Or if you will go back to more
remote times, think of the life of Noah, who prophesied; and of Isaac,
who gave his son a prophetic blessing; or of Jacob, who addressed each
of his twelve sons, beginning with “Come, that I may tell you what shall
befall you in the last days.” These, and a multitude of others,
prophesying on behalf of God, foretold events relating to Jesus Christ.
We therefore for this reason set at nought the oracles of the Pythian
priestess, or those delivered at Dodona, at Clarus, at Branchidæ, at the
temple of Jupiter Ammon, or by a multitude of other so-called prophets;
whilst we regard with reverent awe the Jewish prophets: for we see that
the noble, earnest, and devout lives of these men were worthy of the
inspiration of the Divine Spirit, whose wonderful effects were widely
different from the divination of demons.
Footnote 1426:
Heb. xi. 37, 38.
Chapter VIII.
I do not know what led Celsus, when saying, “But what things were spoken
or not spoken in the land of Judea, according to the custom of the
country,” to use the words “or not spoken,” as though implying that he
was incredulous, and that he suspected that those things which were
written were never spoken. In fact, he is unacquainted with these times;
and he does not know that those prophets who foretold the coming of
Christ, predicted a multitude of other events many years beforehand. He
adds, with the view of casting a slight upon the ancient prophets, that
“they prophesied in the same way as we find them still doing among the
inhabitants of Phœnicia and Palestine.” But he does not tell us whether
he refers to persons who are of different principles from those of the
Jews and Christians, or to persons whose prophecies are of the same
character as those of the Jewish prophets. However it be, his statement
is false, taken in either way. For never have any of those who have not
embraced our faith done anything approaching to what was done by the
ancient prophets; and in more recent times, since the coming of Christ,
no prophets have arisen among the Jews, who have confessedly been
abandoned by the Holy Spirit on account of their impiety towards God,
and towards Him of whom their prophets spoke. Moreover, the Holy Spirit
gave signs of His presence at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and
after His ascension He gave still more; but since that time these signs
have diminished, although there are still traces of His presence in a
few who have had their souls purified by the gospel, and their actions
regulated by its influence. “For the holy spirit of discipline will flee
deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding.”[1427]
Footnote 1427:
Wisd. of Sol. i. 5.
Chapter IX.