But as Celsus promises to give an account of the manner in which

prophecies are delivered in Phœnicia and Palestine, speaking as though

it were a matter with which he had a full and personal acquaintance, let

us see what he has to say on the subject. First he lays it down that

there are several kinds of prophecies, but he does not specify what they

are; indeed, he could not do so, and the statement is a piece of pure

ostentation. However, let us see what he considers the most perfect kind

of prophecy among these nations. “There are many,” he says, “who,

although of no name, with the greatest facility and on the slightest

occasion, whether within or without temples, assume the motions and

gestures of inspired persons; while others do it in cities or among

armies, for the purpose of attracting attention and exciting surprise.

These are accustomed to say, each for himself, ‘I am God; I am the Son

of God; or, I am the Divine Spirit; I have come because the world is

perishing, and you, O men, are perishing for your iniquities. But I wish

to save you, and you shall see me returning again with heavenly power.

Blessed is he who now does me homage. On all the rest I will send down

eternal fire, both on cities and on countries. And those who know not

the punishments which await them shall repent and grieve in vain; while

those who are faithful to me I will preserve eternally.’” Then he goes

on to say: “To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite

unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning:

for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give

occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own

purposes.”

Chapter X.

But if he were dealing honestly in his accusations, he ought to have

given the exact terms of the prophecies, whether those in which the

speaker is introduced as claiming to be God Almighty, or those in which

the Son of God speaks, or finally those under the name of the Holy

Spirit. For thus he might have endeavoured to overthrow these

assertions, and have shown that there was no divine inspiration in those

words which urged men to forsake their sins, which condemned the past

and foretold the future. For the prophecies were recorded and preserved

by men living at the time, that those who came after might read and

admire them as the oracles of God, and that they might profit not only

by the warnings and admonitions, but also by the predictions, which

being shown by events to have proceeded from the Spirit of God, bind men

to the practice of piety as set forth in the law and the prophets. The

prophets have therefore, as God commanded them, declared with all

plainness those things which it was desirable that the hearers should

understand at once for the regulation of their conduct; while in regard

to deeper and more mysterious subjects, which lay beyond the reach of

the common understanding, they set them forth in the form of enigmas and

allegories, or of what are called dark sayings, parables, or

similitudes. And this plan they have followed, that those who are ready

to shun no labour and spare no pains in their endeavours after truth and

virtue might search into their meaning, and having found it, might apply

it as reason requires. But Celsus, ever vigorous in his denunciations,

as though he were angry at his inability to understand the language of

the prophets, scoffs at them thus: “To these grand promises are added

strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational

person can find the meaning; for so dark are they as to have no meaning

at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them

so as to suit his own purposes.” This statement of Celsus seems

ingeniously designed to dissuade readers from attempting any inquiry or

careful search into their meaning. And in this he is not unlike certain

persons, who said to a man whom a prophet had visited to announce future

events, “Wherefore came this mad fellow to thee?”[1428]

Footnote 1428:

2 Kings ix. 11.

Chapter XI.

I am convinced, indeed, that much better arguments could be adduced than

any I have been able to bring forward, to show the falsehood of these

allegations of Celsus, and to set forth the divine inspiration of the

prophecies; but we have according to our ability, in our commentaries on

Isaiah, Ezekiel, and some of the twelve minor prophets, explained

literally and in detail what he calls “those fanatical and utterly

unintelligible passages.” And if God give us grace in the time that He

appoints for us, to advance in the knowledge of His word, we shall

continue our investigation into the parts which remain, or into such at

least as we are able to make plain. And other persons of intelligence

who wish to study Scripture may also find out its meaning for

themselves; for although there are many places in which the meaning is

not obvious, yet there are none where, as Celsus affirms, “there is no

sense at all.” Neither is it true that “any fool or impostor can explain

the passages so as to make them suit his own purposes.” For it belongs

only to those who are wise in the truth of Christ (and to all them it

does belong) to unfold the connection and meaning of even the obscure

parts of prophecy, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” and

interpreting each passage according to the usage of Scripture writers.

And Celsus is not to be believed when he says that he has heard such men

prophesy; for no prophets bearing any resemblance to the ancient

prophets have appeared in the time of Celsus. If there had been any,

those who heard and admired them would have followed the example of the

ancients, and have recorded the prophecies in writing. And it seems

quite clear that Celsus is speaking falsely, when he says that “those

prophets whom he had heard, on being pressed by him, confessed their

true motives, and acknowledged that the ambiguous words they used really

meant nothing.” He ought to have given the names of those whom he says

he had heard, if he had any to give, so that those who were competent to

judge might decide whether his allegations were true or false.

Chapter XII.

He thinks, besides, that those who support the cause of Christ by a

reference to the writings of the prophets can give no proper answer in

regard to statements in them which attribute to God that which is

wicked, shameful, or impure; and assuming that no answer can be given,

he proceeds to draw a whole train of inferences, none of which can be

allowed. But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to

the teaching of sacred Scripture understand the saying, “The knowledge

of the unwise is as talk without sense,”[1429] and have learnt “to be

ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh us a reason for

the hope that is in us.”[1430] And they are not satisfied with affirming

that such and such things have been predicted; but they endeavour to

remove any apparent inconsistencies, and to show that, so far from there

being anything evil, shameful, or impure in these predictions,

everything is worthy of being received by those who understand the

sacred Scriptures. But Celsus ought to have adduced from the prophets

examples of what he thought bad, or shameful, or impure, if he saw any

such passages; for then his argument would have had much more force, and

would have furthered his purpose much better. He gives no instances,

however, but contents himself with loudly asserting the false charge

that these things are to be found in Scripture. There is no reason,

then, for us to defend ourselves against groundless charges, which are

but empty sounds, or to take the trouble of showing that in the writings

of the prophets there is nothing evil, shameful, impure, or abominable.

Footnote 1429:

Ecclus. xxi. 18.

Footnote 1430:

1 Pet. iii. 15.

Chapter XIII.

And there is no truth in the statement of Celsus, that “God does the

most shameless deeds, or suffers the most shameless sufferings,” or that

“He favours the commission of evil;” for whatever he may say, no such

things have ever been foretold. He ought to have cited from the prophets

the passages in which God is represented as favouring evil, or as doing

and enduring the most shameless deeds, and not have sought without

foundation to prejudice the minds of his readers. The prophets, indeed,

foretold what Christ should suffer, and set forth the reason why He

should suffer. God therefore also knew what Christ would suffer; but

where has he learnt that those things which the Christ of God should

suffer were most base and dishonourable? He goes on to explain what

those most shameful and degrading things were which Christ suffered, in

these words: “For what better was it for God to eat the flesh of sheep,

or to drink vinegar and gall, than to feed on filth?” But God, according

to us, did not eat the flesh of sheep; and while it may seem that Jesus

ate, He did so only as possessing a body. But in regard to the vinegar

and gall mentioned in the prophecy, “They gave me also gall for my meat,

and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,”[1431] we have already

referred[1432] to this point; and as Celsus compels us to recur to it

again, we would only say further, that those who resist the word of

truth do ever offer to Christ the Son of God the gall of their own

wickedness, and the vinegar of their evil inclinations; but though He

tastes of it, yet He will not drink it.

Footnote 1431:

Ps. lxix. 21.

Footnote 1432:

Book ii. chap. 37.

Chapter XIV.

In the next place, wishing to shake the faith of those who believe in

Jesus on the ground of the prophecies which were delivered in regard to

Him, Celsus says: “But pray, if the prophets foretold that the great

God—not to put it more harshly—would become a slave, or become sick, or

die; would there be therefore any necessity that God should die, or

suffer sickness, or become a slave, simply because such things had been

foretold? Must he die in order to prove his divinity? But the prophets

never would utter predictions so wicked and impious. We need not

therefore inquire whether a thing has been predicted or not, but whether

the thing is honourable in itself, and worthy of God. In that which is

evil and base, although it seemed that all men in the world had foretold

it in a fit of madness, we must not believe. How then can the pious mind

admit that those things which are said to have happened to him, could

have happened to one who is God?” From this it is plain that Celsus

feels the argument from prophecy to be very effective for convincing

those to whom Christ is preached; but he seems to endeavour to overthrow

it by an opposite probability, namely, “that the question is not whether

the prophets uttered these predictions or not.” But if he wished to

reason justly and without evasion, he ought rather to have said, “We

must show that these things were never predicted, or that those things

which were predicted of Christ have never been fulfilled in him,” and in

that way he would have established the position which he holds. In that

way it would have been made plain what those prophecies are which we

apply to Jesus, and how Celsus could justify himself in asserting that

that application was false. And we should thus have seen whether he

fairly disproved all that we bring from the prophets in behalf of Jesus,

or whether he is himself convicted of a shameless endeavour to resist

the plainest truths by violent assertions.

Chapter XV.

After assuming that some things were foretold which are impossible in

themselves, and inconsistent with the character of God, he says: “If

these things were predicted of the Most High God, are we bound to

believe them of God simply because they were predicted?” And thus he

thinks he proves, that although the prophets may have foretold truly

such things of the Son of God, yet it is impossible for us to believe in

those prophecies declaring that He would do or suffer such things. To

this our answer is that the supposition is absurd, for it combines two

lines of reasoning which are opposed to each other, and therefore

mutually destructive. This may be shown as follows. The one argument is:

“If any true prophets of the Most High say that God will become a slave,

or suffer sickness, or die, these things will come to God; for it is

impossible that the prophets of the great God should utter lies.” The

other is: “If even true prophets of the Most High God say that these

same things shall come to pass, seeing that these things foretold are by

the nature of things impossible, the prophecies are not true, and

therefore those things which have been foretold will not happen to God.”

When, then, we find two processes of reasoning in both of which the

major premiss is the same, leading to two contradictory conclusions, we

use the form of argument called “the theorem of two propositions,”[1433]

to prove that the major premiss is false, which in the case before us is

this, “that the prophets have foretold that the great God should become

a slave, suffer sickness, or die.” We conclude, then, that the prophets

never foretold such things; and the argument is formally expressed as

follows: _1st_, Of two things, if the first is true, the second is true;

_2d_, if the first is[1434] true, the second is not true, therefore the

first is not true. The concrete example which the Stoics give to

illustrate this form of argument is the following: _1st_, If you know

that you are dead, you are dead; _2d_, if you know that you are dead,

you are not dead. And the conclusion is—“you do not know that you are

dead.” These propositions are worked out as follows: If you know that

you are dead, that which you know is certain; therefore you are dead.

Again, if you know that you are dead, your death is an object of

knowledge; but as the dead know nothing, your knowing this proves that

you are not dead. Accordingly, by joining the two arguments together,

you arrive at the conclusion—“you do not know that you are dead.” Now

the hypothesis of Celsus which we have given above is much of the same

kind.

Footnote 1433:

διὰ δύο τροπικῶν θεωρήμα.

Footnote 1434:

We follow Bouhereau and Valesius, who expunge the negative particle in

this clause.

Chapter XVI.

But besides, the prophecies which he introduces into his argument are

very different from what the prophets actually foretold of Jesus Christ.

For the prophecies do not foretell that God will be crucified, when they

say of Him who should suffer, “We beheld Him, and He had no form or

comeliness; but His form was dishonoured and marred more than the sons

of men; He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.”[1435]

Observe, then, how distinctly they say that it was a man who should

endure these human sufferings. And Jesus Himself, who knew perfectly

that one who was to die must be a man, said to His accusers: “But now ye

seek to kill me, a man that hath spoken unto you the truth which I heard

of God.”[1436] And if in that man as He appeared among men there was

something divine, namely the only-begotten Son of God, the first-born of

all creation, one who said of Himself, “I am the truth,” “I am the

life,” “I am the door,” “I am the way,” “I am the living bread which

came down from heaven,” of this Being and His nature we must judge and

reason in a way quite different from that in which we judge of the man

who was seen in Jesus Christ. Accordingly, you will find no Christian,

however simple he may be, and however little versed in critical studies,

who would say that He who died was “the truth,” “the life,” “the way,”

“the living bread which came down from heaven,” “the resurrection;” for

it was He who appeared to us in the form of the man Jesus, who taught

us, saying, “I am the resurrection.” There is no one amongst us, I say,

so extravagant as to affirm “the Life died,” “the Resurrection died.”

The supposition of Celsus would have some foundation if we were to say

that it had been foretold by the prophets that death would befall God

the Word, the Truth, the Life, the Resurrection, or any other name which

is assumed by the Son of God.

Footnote 1435:

Isa. liii. 2, 3.

Footnote 1436:

John viii. 40.

Chapter XVII.

In one point alone is Celsus correct in his statements on this subject.

It is that in which he says: “The prophets would not foretell this,

because it involves that which is wicked and impious,”—namely, that the

great God should become a slave or suffer death. But that which is

predicted by the prophets is worthy of God, that He who is the

brightness and express image of the divine nature should come into the

world with the holy human soul which was to animate the body of Jesus,

to sow the seed of His word, which might bring all who received and

cherished it into union with the Most High God, and which would lead to

perfect blessedness all those who felt within them the power of God the

Word, who was to be in the body and soul of a man. He was to be in it

indeed, but not in such a way as to confine therein all the rays of His

glory; and we are not to suppose that the light of Him who is God the

Word is shed forth in no other way than in this. If, then, we consider

Jesus in relation to the divinity that was in Him, the things which He

did in this capacity present nothing to offend our ideas of God, nothing

but what is holy; and if we consider Him as man, distinguished beyond

all other men by an intimate communion with the Eternal Word, with

absolute Wisdom, He suffered as one who was wise and perfect, whatever

it behoved Him to suffer who did all for the good of the human race,

yea, even for the good of all intelligent beings. And there is nothing

absurd in a man having died, and in His death being not only an example

of death endured for the sake of piety, but also the first blow in the

conflict which is to overthrow the power of that evil spirit the devil,

who had obtained dominion over the whole world. For we have signs and

pledges of the destruction of his empire, in those who through the

coming of Christ are everywhere escaping from the power of demons, and

who, after their deliverance from this bondage in which they were held,

consecrate themselves to God, and earnestly devote themselves day by day

to advancement in a life of piety.

Chapter XVIII.

Celsus adds: “Will they not besides make this reflection? If the

prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into

the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them

through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the

earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy

them utterly, which indeed he himself did—as Moses says—threatening

them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat

them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man

of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these, declaring that no

one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that

men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that

they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that

to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to receive

another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the

Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to

Moses? Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send forth a

messenger with counter instructions?” Celsus, with all his boasts of

universal knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of errors, in

supposing that in the law and the prophets there is not a meaning deeper

than that afforded by a literal rendering of the words. He does not see

how manifestly incredible it is that worldly riches should be promised

to those who lead upright lives, when it is a matter of common

observation that the best of men have lived in extreme poverty. Indeed,

the prophets themselves, who for the purity of their lives received the

Divine Spirit, “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.”[1437] For, as the

Psalmist says, “many are the afflictions of the righteous.”[1438] If

Celsus had read the writings of Moses, he would, I daresay, have

supposed that when it is said to him who kept the law, “Thou shalt lend

unto many nations, and thou thyself shalt not borrow,”[1439] the promise

is made to the just man, that his temporal riches should be so abundant,

that he would be able to lend not only to the Jews, not only to two or

three nations, but “to many nations.” What, then, must have been the

wealth which the just man received according to the law for his

righteousness, if he could lend to many nations? And must we not suppose

also, in accordance with this interpretation, that the just man would

never borrow anything? For it is written, “and thou shalt thyself borrow

nothing.” Did then that nation remain for so long a period attached to

the religion which was taught by Moses, whilst, according to the

supposition of Celsus, they saw themselves so grievously deceived by

that lawgiver? For nowhere is it said of any one that he was so rich as

to lend to many nations. It is not to be believed that they would have

fought so zealously in defence of a law whose promises had proved

glaringly false, if they understood them in the sense which Celsus gives

to them. And if any one should say that the sins which are recorded to

have been committed by the people are a proof that they despised the

law, doubtless from the feeling that they had been deceived by it, we

may reply that we have only to read the history of the times in order to

find it shown that the whole people, after having done that which was

evil in the sight of the Lord, returned afterwards to their duty, and to

the religion prescribed by the law.

Footnote 1437:

Heb. xi. 37, 38.

Footnote 1438:

Ps. xxxiv. 19.

Footnote 1439:

Deut. xxviii. 12.

Chapter XIX.

Now if these words in the law, “Thou shalt have dominion over many

nations, and no one shall rule over thee,” were simply a promise to them

of dominion, and if they contain no deeper meaning than this, then it is

certain that the people would have had still stronger grounds for

despising the promises of the law. Celsus brings forward another

passage, although he changes the terms of it, where it is said that the

whole earth shall be filled with the Hebrew race; which indeed,

according to the testimony of history, did actually happen after the

coming of Christ, although rather as a result of God’s anger, if I may

so say, than of His blessing. As to the promise made to the Jews that

they should slay their enemies, it may be answered that any one who

examines carefully into the meaning of this passage will find himself

unable to interpret it literally. It is sufficient at present to refer

to the manner in which in the Psalms the just man is represented as

saying, among other things, “Every morning will I destroy the wicked of

the land, that I may cut off all workers of iniquity from the city of

Jehovah.”[1440] Judge, then, from the words and spirit of the speaker,

whether it is conceivable that, after having in the preceding part of

the Psalm, as any one may read for himself, uttered the noblest thoughts

and purposes, he should in the sequel, according to the literal

rendering of his words, say that in the morning, and at no other period

of the day, he would destroy all sinners from the earth, and leave none

of them alive, and that he would slay every one in Jerusalem who did

iniquity. And there are many similar expressions to be found in the law,

as this, for example: “We left not anything alive.”[1441]

Footnote 1440:

Ps. ci. 9.

Footnote 1441:

Deut. ii. 34.

Chapter XX.

Celsus adds, that it was foretold to the Jews, that if they did not obey

the law, they would be treated in the same way as they treated their

enemies; and then he quotes from the teaching of Christ some precepts

which he considers contrary to those of the law, and uses that as an

argument against us. But before proceeding to this point, we must speak

of that which precedes. We hold, then, that the law has a twofold

sense,—the one literal, the other spiritual,—as has been shown by some

before us. Of the first or literal sense it is said, not by us, but by

God, speaking in one of the prophets, that “the statutes are not good,

and the judgments not good;”[1442] whereas, taken in a spiritual sense,

the same prophet makes God say that “His statutes are good, and His

judgments good.” Yet evidently the prophet is not saying things which

are contradictory of each other. Paul in like manner says, that “the

letter killeth, and the spirit giveth life,”[1443] meaning by “the

letter” the literal sense, and by “the spirit” the spiritual sense of

Scripture. We may therefore find in Paul, as well as in the prophet,

apparent contradictions. Indeed, if Ezekiel says in one place, “I gave

them commandments which were not good, and judgments whereby they should

not live,” and in another, “I gave them good commandments and judgments,

which if a man shall do, he shall live by them,” Paul in like manner,

when he wishes to disparage the law taken literally, says, “If the

ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so

that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of

Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away,

how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?”[1444]

But when in another place he wishes to praise and recommend the law, he

calls it “spiritual,” and says, “We know that the law is spiritual;”

and, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and

good.”[1445]

Footnote 1442:

Ezek. xx. 25.

Footnote 1443:

2 Cor. iii. 6.

Footnote 1444:

2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.

Footnote 1445:

Rom. vii. 12, 14.

Chapter XXI.

When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just, Celsus

may follow the letter which killeth, and understand it of worldly

riches, which blind men; but we say that it refers to those riches which

enlighten the eyes, and which enrich a man “in all utterance and in all

knowledge.” And in this sense we “charge them that are rich in this

world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but

in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they

do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing

to communicate.”[1446] For, as Solomon says, “riches” are the true good,

which “are the ransom of the life of a man;” but the poverty which is

the opposite of these riches is destructive, for by it “the poor cannot

bear rebuke.”[1447] And what has been said of riches applies to

dominion, in regard to which it is said, “The just man shall chase a

thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.”[1448] Now if riches are

to be taken in the sense we have just explained, consider if it is not

according to God’s promise that he who is rich in all utterance, in all

knowledge, in all wisdom, in all good works, may not out of these

treasures of utterance, of wisdom, and of knowledge, lend to many

nations. It was thus that Paul lent to all the nations that he visited,

“carrying the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, and round about unto

Illyricum.”[1449] And as the divine knowledge was given to him by

revelation, and his mind was illumined by the Divine Word, he himself

therefore needed to borrow from no one, and required not the ministry of

any man to teach him the word of truth. Thus, as it had been written,

“Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall not have

dominion over thee,” he ruled over the Gentiles whom he brought under

the teaching of Jesus Christ; and he never “gave place by subjection to

men, no, not for an hour,”[1450] as being himself mightier than they.

And thus also he “filled the earth.”

Footnote 1446:

1 Tim. vi. 17, 18.

Footnote 1447:

Prov. xiii. 8.

Footnote 1448:

Deut. xxxii. 30.

Footnote 1449:

Rom. xv. 19.

Footnote 1450:

Gal. ii. 5.

Chapter XXII.

If I must now explain how the just man “slays his enemies,” and prevails

everywhere, it is to be observed that, when he says, “Every morning will

I destroy the wicked of the land, that I may cut off all workers of

iniquity from the city of Jehovah,” by “the land” he means the flesh

whose lusts are at enmity with God; and by “the city of Jehovah” he

designates his own soul, in which was the temple of God, containing the

true idea and conception of God, which makes it to be admired by all who

look upon it. As soon, then, as the rays of the Sun of righteousness

shine into his soul, feeling strengthened and invigorated by their

influence, he sets himself to destroy all the lusts of the flesh, which

are called “the wicked of the land,” and drives out of that city of the

Lord which is in his soul all thoughts which work iniquity, and all

suggestions which are opposed to the truth. And in this way also the

just give up to destruction all their enemies, which are their vices, so

that they do not spare even the children, that is, the early beginnings

and promptings of evil. In this sense also we understand the language of

the 137th Psalm: “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy

shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us: happy shall he

be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”[1451]

For “the little ones” of Babylon (which signifies confusion) are those

troublesome sinful thoughts which arise in the soul; and he who subdues

them by striking, as it were, their heads against the firm and solid

strength of reason and truth, is the man who “dasheth the little ones

against the stones;” and he is therefore truly blessed. God may

therefore have commanded men to destroy all their vices utterly, even at

their birth, without having enjoined anything contrary to the teaching

of Christ; and He may Himself have destroyed before the eyes of those

who were “Jews inwardly”[1452] all the offspring of evil as His enemies.

And, in like manner, those who disobey the law and word of God may well

be compared to His enemies led astray by sin; and they may well be said

to suffer the same fate as they deserve who have proved traitors to the

truth of God.

Footnote 1451:

Ps. cxxxvii. 8, 9.

Footnote 1452:

Rom. ii. 29.

Chapter XXIII.

From what has been said, it is clear then that Jesus, “the man of

Nazareth,” did not promulgate laws opposed to those just considered in

regard to riches, when He said, “It is hard for the rich man to enter

into the kingdom of God;”[1453] whether we take the word “rich” in its

simplest sense, as referring to the man whose mind is distracted by his

wealth, and, as it were, entangled with thorns, so that he brings forth

no spiritual fruit; or whether it is the man who is rich in the sense of

abounding in false notions, of whom it is written in the Proverbs,

“Better is the poor man who is just, than the rich man who is

false.”[1454] Perhaps it is the following passages which have led Celsus

to suppose that Jesus forbids ambition to His disciples: “Whoever of you

will be the chiefest shall be servant of all;”[1455] “The princes of the

Gentiles exercise dominion over them,”[1456] and “they that exercise

authority upon them are called benefactors.”[1457] But there is nothing

here inconsistent with the promise, “Thou shalt rule over many nations,

and they shall not rule over thee,” especially after the explanation

which we have given of these words. Celsus next throws in an expression

in regard to wisdom, as though he thought that, according to the

teaching of Christ, no wise man could come to the Father. But we would

ask in what sense he speaks of a wise man. For if he means one who is

wise in “the wisdom of this world,” as it is called, “which is

foolishness with God,”[1458] then we would agree with him in saying that

access to the Father is denied to one who is wise in that sense. But if

by wisdom any one means Christ, who is “the power and wisdom of God,”

far from such a wise man being refused access to the Father, we hold

that he who is adorned by the Holy Spirit with that gift which is called

“the word of wisdom,” far excels all those who have not received the

same grace.

Footnote 1453:

Matt. xix. 23.

Footnote 1454:

Prov. xxviii. 6.

Footnote 1455:

Mark x. 44.

Footnote 1456:

Matt. xx. 25.

Footnote 1457:

Luke xxii. 25.

Footnote 1458:

1 Cor. iii. 19.

Chapter XXIV.

The pursuit of human glory, we maintain, is forbidden not only by the

teaching of Jesus, but also by the Old Testament. Accordingly we find

one of the prophets, when imprecating upon himself certain punishments

for the commission of certain sins, includes among the punishments this

one of earthly glory. He says, “O Lord my God, if I have done this; if

there be iniquity in my hands; if I have rewarded evil unto him that was

at peace with me; (yea, rather, I have delivered him that without cause

is mine enemy;) let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let

him tread down my life upon the earth, and _set my glory up on

high_.”[1459] And these precepts of our Lord, “Take no thought what ye

shall eat, or what ye shall drink. Behold the fowls of the air, or

behold the ravens: for they sow not, neither do they reap; yet your

heavenly Father feedeth them. How much better are ye than they! And why

take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the

field;”[1460]—these precepts, and those which follow, are not

inconsistent with the promised blessings of the law, which teaches that

the just “shall eat their bread to the full;”[1461] nor with that saying

of Solomon, “The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul, but the

belly of the wicked shall want.”[1462] For we must consider the food

promised in the law as the food of the soul, which is to satisfy not

both parts of man’s nature, but the soul only. And the words of the

Gospel, although probably containing a deeper meaning, may yet be taken

in their more simple and obvious sense, as teaching us not to be

disturbed with anxieties about our food and clothing, but, while living

in plainness, and desiring only what is needful, to put our trust in the

providence of God.

Footnote 1459:

Ps. vii. 3-5. Origen follows the reading εἰς χοῦν instead of εἰς

χνοῦν, “make my glory abide _in the dust_.”

Footnote 1460:

Matt. vi. 25-28.

Footnote 1461:

Lev. xxvi. 5.

Footnote 1462:

Prov. xiii. 25.

Chapter XXV.

Celsus then extracts from the Gospel the precept, “To him who strikes

thee once, thou shalt offer thyself to be struck again,” although

without giving any passage from the Old Testament which he considers

opposed to it. On the one hand, we know that “it was said to them in old

time, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;”[1463] and on the

other, we have read, “I say unto you, Whoever shall smite thee on the

one cheek, turn to him the other also.”[1464] But as there is reason to

believe that Celsus produces the objections which he has heard from

those who wish to make a difference between the God of the gospel and

the God of the law, we must say in reply, that this precept, “Whosoever

shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other,” is not

unknown to the older Scriptures. For thus, in the Lamentations of

Jeremiah, it is said, “It is good for a man that he beareth the yoke in

his youth: he sitteth alone, and keepeth silence, because he hath borne

it upon him: he giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him; he is filled

full with reproach.”[1465] There is no discrepancy, then, between the

God of the gospel and the God of the law, even when we take literally

the precept regarding the blow on the face. So, then, we infer that

neither “Jesus nor Moses has taught falsely.” The Father in sending

Jesus did not “forget the commands which He had given to Moses:” He did

not “change His mind, condemn His own laws, and send by His messenger

counter instructions.”

Footnote 1463:

Ex. xxi. 24.

Footnote 1464:

Matt. v. 39.

Footnote 1465:

Lam. iii. 27, 29, 30.

Chapter XXVI.

However, if we must refer briefly to the difference between the

constitution which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which

the Christians, under the direction of Christ’s teaching, wish now to

establish, we would observe that it must be impossible for the

legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of

the Gentiles, and with their subjection to the Roman government; and on

the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their

civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the gospel.

For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or

stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were

therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments; since the Jews

themselves, however desirous of carrying out their law, are not able to

inflict these punishments. But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had

a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the

right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country,

of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or

others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to

sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for

their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from

resisting the enemy. And that same providence which of old gave the law,

and has now given the gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing the Jewish

state to continue longer, has destroyed their city and their temple: it

has abolished the worship which was offered to God in that temple by the

sacrifice of victims, and other ceremonies which He had prescribed. And

as it has destroyed these things, not wishing that they should longer

continue, in like manner it has extended day by day the Christian

religion, so that it is now preached everywhere with boldness, and that

in spite of the numerous obstacles which oppose the spread of Christ’s

teaching in the world. But since it was the purpose of God that the

nations should receive the benefits of Christ’s teaching, all the

devices of men against Christians have been brought to nought; for the

more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have persecuted them

everywhere, the more have they increased in number and grown in

strength.

Chapter XXVII.

After this Celsus relates at length opinions which he ascribes to us,

but which we do not hold, regarding the Divine Being, to the effect that

“he is corporeal in his nature, and possesses a body like a man.” As he

undertakes to refute opinions which are none of ours, it would be

needless to give either the opinions themselves or their refutation.

Indeed, if we did hold those views of God which he ascribes to us, and

which he opposes, we would be bound to quote his words, to adduce our

own arguments, and to refute his. But if he brings forward opinions

which he has either heard from no one, or if it be assumed that he has

heard them, it must have been from those who are very simple and

ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, then we need not undertake so

superfluous a task as that of refuting them. For the Scriptures plainly

speak of God as of a being without body. Hence it is said, “No man hath

seen God at any time;”[1466] and the First-born of all creation is

called “the image of the invisible God,”[1467] which is the same as if

it were said that He is incorporeal. However, we have already said

something on the nature of God while examining into the meaning of the

words, “God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in

spirit and in truth.”

Footnote 1466:

John i. 18.

Footnote 1467:

Col. i. 15.

Chapter XXVIII.

After thus misrepresenting our views of the nature of God, Celsus goes

on to ask of us “where we hope to go after death;” and he makes our

answer to be, “to another land better than this.” On this he comments as

follows: “The divine men of a former age have spoken of a happy life

reserved for the souls of the blessed. Some designated it ‘the isles of

the blest,’ and others ‘the Elysian plain,’ so called because they were

there to be delivered from their present evils. Thus Homer says: ‘But

the gods shall send thee to the Elysian plain, on the borders of the

earth, where they lead a most quiet life.’[1468] Plato also, who

believed in the immortality of the soul, distinctly gives the name

‘land’ to the place where it is sent. ‘The extent of it,’[1469] says he,

‘is immense, and we only occupy a small portion of it, from the Phasis

to the Pillars of Hercules, where we dwell along the shores of the sea,

as grasshoppers and frogs beside a marsh. But there are many other

places inhabited in like manner by other men. For there are in different

parts of the earth cavities, varying in form and in magnitude, into

which run water, and clouds, and air. But that land which is pure lies

in the pure region of heaven.’” Celsus therefore supposes that what we

say of a land which is much better and more excellent than this, has

been borrowed from certain ancient writers whom he styles “divine,” and

chiefly from Plato, who in his _Phœdon_ discourses on the pure land

lying in a pure heaven. But he does not see that Moses, who is much

older than the Greek literature, introduces God as promising to those

who lived according to His law the holy land, which is “a good land and

a large, a land flowing with milk and honey;”[1470] which promise is not

to be understood to refer, as some suppose, to that part of the earth

which we call Judæa; for it, however good it may be, still forms part of

the earth, which was originally cursed for the transgression of Adam.

For these words, “Cursed shall the ground be for what thou hast done;

with grief, that is, with labour, shalt thou eat of the fruit of it all

the days of thy life,”[1471] were spoken of the whole earth, the fruit

of which every man who died in Adam eats with sorrow or labour all the

days of his life. And as all the earth has been cursed, it brings forth

thorns and briers all the days of the life of those who in Adam were

driven out of paradise; and in the sweat of his face every man eats

bread until he returns to the ground from which he was taken. For the

full exposition of all that is contained in this passage much might be

said; but we have confined ourselves to these few words at present,

which are intended to remove the idea, that what is said of the good

land promised by God to the righteous, refers to the land of Judæa.

Footnote 1468:

_Odys._ iv. 563.

Footnote 1469:

_Phædon_, p. 109.

Footnote 1470:

Ex. iii. 8.

Footnote 1471:

Gen. iii. 17.

Chapter XXIX.

If, then, the whole earth has been cursed in the deeds of Adam and of

those who died in him, it is plain that all parts of the earth share in

the curse, and among others the land of Judæa; so that the words, “a

good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey,” cannot apply

to it, although we may say of it, that both Judæa and Jerusalem were the

shadow and figure of that pure land, goodly and large, in the pure

region of heaven, in which is the heavenly Jerusalem. And it is in

reference to this Jerusalem that the apostle spoke, as one who, “being

risen with Christ, and seeking those things which are above,” had found

a truth which formed no part of the Jewish mythology. “Ye are come,”

says he, “unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the

heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.”[1472] And

in order to be assured that our explanation of “the good and large land”

of Moses is not contrary to the intention of the Divine Spirit, we have

only to read in all the prophets what they say of those who, after

having left Jerusalem, and wandered astray from it, should afterwards

return and be settled in the place which is called the habitation and

city of God, as in the words, “His dwelling is in the holy place;”[1473]

and, “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our

God, in the mountain of His holiness, beautiful for situation, the joy

of the whole earth.”[1474] It is enough at present to quote the words of

the thirty-seventh Psalm, which speaks thus of the land of the

righteous, “Those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the

earth;” and a little after, “But the meek shall inherit the earth, and

shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace;” and again, “Those

who bless Him shall inherit the earth;” and, “The righteous shall

inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.”[1475] And consider

whether it is not evident to intelligent readers that the following

words from this same Psalm refer to the pure land in the pure heaven:

“Wait on the Lord, and keep His way; and He shall exalt thee to inherit

the land.”

Footnote 1472:

Heb. xii. 22.

Footnote 1473:

Ps. lxxvi. 2; English version, “In Salem is His tabernacle.”

Footnote 1474:

Ps. xlviii. 1, 2.

Footnote 1475:

Ps. xxxvii. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34.

Chapter XXX.

It seems to me also that that fancy of Plato, that those stones which we

call precious stones derive their lustre from a reflection, as it were,

of the stones in that better land, is taken from the words of Isaiah in

describing the city of God, “I will make thy battlements of jasper, thy

stones shall be crystal, and thy borders of precious stones;”[1476] and,

“I will lay thy foundations with sapphires.” Those who hold in greatest

reverence the teaching of Plato, explain this myth of his as an

allegory. And the prophecies from which, as we conjecture, Plato has

borrowed, will be explained by those who, leading a godly life like that

of the prophets, devote all their time to the study of the sacred

Scriptures, to those who are qualified to learn by purity of life, and

their desire to advance in divine knowledge. For our part, our purpose

has been simply to say that what we affirm of that sacred land has not

been taken from Plato or any of the Greeks, but that they rather—living

as they did not only after Moses, who was the oldest, but even after

most of the prophets—borrowed from them, and in so doing either

misunderstood their obscure intimations on such subjects, or else

endeavoured, in their allusions to the better land, to imitate those

portions of Scripture which had fallen into their hands. Haggai

expressly makes a distinction between the earth and the dry land,

meaning by the latter the land in which we live. He says: “Yet once, and

I will shake the heavens and the earth, and the dry land, and the

sea.”[1477]

Footnote 1476:

Isa. liv. 12, 11.

Footnote 1477:

Hagg. ii. 6.

Chapter XXXI.

Referring to the passage in the _Phœdon_ of Plato, Celsus says: “It is

not easy for every one to understand the meaning of Plato’s words, when

he says that on account of our weakness and slowness we are unable to

reach the highest region of the air; but that if our nature were capable

of so sublime a contemplation, we would then be able to understand that

that is the true heaven, and that the true light.” As Celsus has

deferred to another opportunity the explanation of Plato’s idea, we also

think that it does not fall within our purpose at present to enter into

any full description of that holy and good land, and of the city of God

which is in it; but reserve the consideration of it for our Commentary

on the Prophets, having already in part, according to our power, treated

of the city of God in our remarks on the forty-sixth and forty-eighth

Psalms. The writings of Moses and the prophets—the most ancient of all

books—teach us that all things here on earth which are in common use

among men, have other things corresponding to them in name which are

alone real. Thus, for instance, there is the true light, and another

heaven beyond the firmament, and a Sun of righteousness other than the

sun we see. In a word, to distinguish those things from the objects of

sense, which have no true reality, they say of God that “His works are

truth;”[1478] thus making a distinction between the works of God and the

works of God’s hands, which latter are of an inferior sort. Accordingly,

God in Isaiah complains of men, that “they regard not the works of the

Lord, nor consider the operation of His hands.”[1479] But enough on this

point.

Footnote 1478:

Dan. iv. 37.

Footnote 1479:

Isa. v. 12.

Chapter XXXII.

Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, which is a high

and difficult doctrine, and one which more than others requires a high

and advanced degree of wisdom to set forth how worthy it is of God; and

how sublime a truth it is which teaches us that there is a seminal

principle lodged in that which Scripture speaks of as the “tabernacle”

of the soul, in which the righteous “do groan, being burdened, not for

that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon.”[1480] Celsus ridicules

this doctrine because he does not understand it, and because he has

learnt it from ignorant persons, who were unable to support it on any

reasonable grounds. It will be profitable, therefore, that in addition

to what we have said above, we should make this one remark. Our teaching

on the subject of the resurrection is not, as Celsus imagines, derived

from anything that we have heard on the doctrine of metempsychosis; but

we know that the soul, which is immaterial and invisible in its nature,

exists in no material place, without having a body suited to the nature

of that place. Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was

necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state,

and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another

in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited

to the purer etherial regions of heaven. When it comes into the world at

birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and

before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon

earth. Then, again, as there is “a tabernacle” and “an earthly house”

which is in some sort necessary for this tabernacle, Scripture teaches

us that “the earthly house of this tabernacle shall be dissolved,” but

that the tabernacle shall “be clothed upon with a house not made with

hands, eternal in the heavens.”[1481] The men of God say also that “the

corruptible shall put on incorruption,”[1482] which is a different thing

from “the incorruptible;” and “the mortal shall put on immortality,”

which is different from “the immortal.” Indeed, what “wisdom” is to “the

wise,” and “justice” to “the just,” and “peace” to “the peaceable,” the

same relation does “incorruption” hold to “the incorruptible,” and

“immortality” to “the immortal.” Behold, then, to what a prospect

Scripture encourages us to look, when it speaks to us of being clothed

with incorruption and immortality, which are, as it were, vestments

which will not suffer those who are covered with them to come to

corruption or death. Thus far I have taken the liberty of referring to

this subject, in answer to one who assails the doctrine of the

resurrection without understanding it, and who, simply because he knew

nothing about it, made it the object of contempt and ridicule.

Footnote 1480:

2 Cor. v. 1, 4.

Footnote 1481:

2 Cor. v. 1.

Footnote 1482:

1 Cor. xv. 53.

Chapter XXXIII.

As Celsus supposes that we uphold the doctrine of the resurrection in

order that we may see and know God, he thus follows out his notions on

the subject: “After they have been utterly refuted and vanquished, they

still, as if regardless of all objections, come back again to the same

question, ‘How then shall we see and know God? how shall we go to Him?’”

Let any, however, who are disposed to hear us observe, that if we have

need of a body for other purposes, as for occupying a material locality

to which this body must be adapted, and if on that account the

“tabernacle” is clothed in the way we have shown, we have no need of a

body in order to know God. For that which sees God is not the eye of the

body; it is the mind which is made in the image of the Creator,[1483]

and which God has in His providence rendered capable of that knowledge.

To see God belongs to the pure heart, out of which no longer proceed

“evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false

witness, blasphemies, the evil eye,”[1484] or any other evil thing.

Wherefore it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see

God.”[1485] But as the strength of our will is not sufficient to procure

the perfectly pure heart, and as we need that God should create it, he

therefore who prays as he ought, offers this petition to God, “Create in

me a clean heart, O God.”[1486]

Footnote 1483:

Bouhéreau follows the reading, “the mind which sees what is made in

the image of the Creator.”

Footnote 1484:

Matt. xv. 19 and vi. 23.

Footnote 1485:

Matt. v. 8.

Footnote 1486:

Ps. li. 10.

Chapter XXXIV.

And we do not ask the question, “How shall we go to God?” as though we

thought that God existed in some place. God is of too excellent a nature

for any place: He holds all things in His power, and is Himself not

confined by anything whatever. The precept, therefore, “Thou shalt walk

after the Lord thy God,”[1487] does not command a bodily approach to

God; neither does the prophet refer to physical nearness to God, when he

says in his prayer, “My soul followeth hard after Thee.”[1488] Celsus

therefore misrepresents us, when he says that we expect to see God with

our bodily eyes, to hear Him with our ears, and to touch Him sensibly

with our hands. We know that the holy Scriptures make mention of eyes,

of ears, and of hands, which have nothing but the name in common with

the bodily organs; and what is more wonderful, they speak of a diviner

sense, which is very different from the senses as commonly spoken of.

For when the prophet says, “Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold

wondrous things out of Thy law,”[1489] or, “The commandment of the Lord

is pure, enlightening the eyes,”[1490] or, “Lighten mine eyes, lest I

sleep the sleep of death,”[1491] no one is so foolish as to suppose that

the eyes of the body behold the wonders of the divine law, or that the

law of the Lord gives light to the bodily eyes, or that the sleep of

death falls on the eyes of the body. When our Saviour says, “He that

hath ears to hear, let him hear,”[1492] any one will understand that the

ears spoken of are of a diviner kind. When it is said that the word of

the Lord was “in the hand” of Jeremiah or of some other prophet; or when

the expression is used, “the law by the hand of Moses,” or, “I sought

the Lord with my hands, and was not deceived,”[1493]—no one is so

foolish as not to see that the word “hands” is taken figuratively, as

when John says, “Our hands have handled the Word of life.”[1494] And if

you wish further to learn from the sacred writings that there is a

diviner sense than the senses of the body, you have only to hear what

Solomon says, “Thou shalt find a divine sense.”[1495]

Footnote 1487:

Deut. xiii. 4.

Footnote 1488:

Ps. lxiii. 8.

Footnote 1489:

Ps. cxix. 18.

Footnote 1490:

Ps. xix. 8.

Footnote 1491:

Ps. xiii. 3.

Footnote 1492:

Matt. xiii. 9.

Footnote 1493:

Ps. lxxvii. 2, according to the LXX.

Footnote 1494:

1 John i. 1.

Footnote 1495:

Prov. ii. 5. E. V. and LXX., “Thou shalt find the knowledge of God.”

Chapter XXXV.

Seeking God, then, in this way, we have no need to visit the oracles of

Trophonius, of Amphiaraus, and of Mopsus, to which Celsus would send us,

assuring us that we would there “see the gods in human form, appearing

to us with all distinctness, and without illusion.” For we know that

these are demons, feeding on the blood, and smoke, and odour of victims,

and shut up by their base desires in prisons, which the Greeks call

temples of the gods, but which we know are only the dwellings of

deceitful demons. To this Celsus maliciously adds, in regard to these

gods which, according to him, are in human form, “they do not show

themselves for once, or at intervals, like him who has deceived men, but

they are ever open to intercourse with those who desire it.” From this

remark, it would seem that Celsus supposes that the appearance of Christ

to His disciples after His resurrection was like that of a spectre

flitting before their eyes; whereas these gods, as he calls them, in

human shape always present themselves to those who desire it. But how is

it possible that a phantom which, as he describes it, flew past to

deceive the beholders, could produce such effects after it had passed

away, and could so turn the hearts of men as to lead them to regulate

their actions according to the will of God, as in view of being

hereafter judged by Him? And how could a phantom drive away demons, and

show other indisputable evidences of power, and that not in any one

place, like these so-called gods in human form, but making its divine

power felt through the whole world, in drawing and congregating together

all who are found disposed to lead a good and noble life?

Chapter XXXVI.

After these remarks of Celsus, which we have endeavoured to answer as we

could, he goes on to say, speaking of us: “Again they will ask, ‘How can

we know God, unless by the perception of the senses? for how otherwise

than through the senses are we able to gain any knowledge?’” To this he

replies: “This is not the language of a man; it comes not from the soul,

but from the flesh. Let them hearken to us, if such a spiritless and

carnal race are able to do so: if, instead of exercising the senses, you

look upwards with the soul; if, turning away the eye of the body, you

open the eye of the mind, thus and thus only will you be able to see

God. And if you seek one to be your guide along this way, you must shun

all deceivers and jugglers, who will introduce you to phantoms.

Otherwise you will be acting the most ridiculous part, if, whilst you

pronounce imprecations upon those others that are recognised as gods,

treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a more wretched idol than

any of these, which indeed is not even an idol or a phantom, but a dead

man, and you seek a father like to him.” The first remark which we have

to make on this passage is in regard to his use of personification, by

which he makes us defend in this way the doctrine of the resurrection.

This figure of speech is properly employed when the character and

sentiments of the person introduced are faithfully preserved; but it is

an abuse of the figure when these do not agree with the character and

opinions of the speaker. Thus we should justly condemn a man who put

into the mouths of barbarians, slaves, or uneducated people the language

of philosophy; because we know that the philosophy belonged to the

author, and not to such persons, who could not know anything of

philosophy. And in like manner we should condemn a man for introducing

persons who are represented as wise and well versed in divine knowledge,

and should make them give expression to language which could only come

out of the mouths of those who are ignorant or under the influence of

vulgar passions. Hence Homer is admired, among other things, for

preserving a consistency of character in his heroes, as in Nestor,

Ulysses, Diomede, Agamemnon, Telemachus, Penelope, and the rest.

Euripides, on the contrary, was assailed in the comedies of Aristophanes

as a frivolous talker, often putting into the mouth of a barbarian

woman, a wretched slave, the wise maxims which he had learned from

Anaxagoras or some other philosophers.

Chapter XXXVII.

Now if this is a true account of what constitutes the right and the

wrong use of personification, have we not grounds for holding Celsus up

to ridicule for thus ascribing to Christians words which they never

uttered? For if those whom he represents as speaking are the unlearned,

how is it possible that such persons could distinguish between “sense”

and “reason,” between “objects of sense” and “objects of the reason?” To

argue in this way, they would require to have studied under the Stoics,

who deny all intellectual existences, and maintain that all that we

apprehend is apprehended through the senses, and that all knowledge

comes through the senses. But if, on the other hand, he puts these words

into the mouth of philosophers who search carefully into the meaning of

Christian doctrines, the statements in question do not agree with their

character and principles. For no one who has learnt that God is

invisible, and that certain of His works are invisible, that is to say,

apprehended by the reason,[1496] can say, as if to justify his faith in

a resurrection, “How can they know God, except by the perception of the

senses?” or, “How otherwise than through the senses can they gain any

knowledge?” For it is not in any secret writings, perused only by a few

wise men, but in such as are most widely diffused and most commonly

known among the people, that these words are written: “The invisible

things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being

understood by the things that are made.”[1497] From whence it is to be

inferred, that though men who live upon the earth have to begin with the

use of the senses upon sensible objects, in order to go on from them to

a knowledge of the nature of things intellectual, yet their knowledge

must not stop short with the objects of sense. And thus, while

Christians would not say that it is impossible to have a knowledge of

intellectual objects without the senses, but rather that the senses

supply the first means of obtaining knowledge, they might well ask the

question, “Who can gain any knowledge without the senses?” without

deserving the abuse of Celsus, when he adds, “This is not the language

of a man; it comes not from the soul, but from the flesh.”

Footnote 1496:

νοητά, falling under the province of νοῦς, the reason. For

convenience, we translate it elsewhere “intellectual.”

Footnote 1497:

Rom. i. 20.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Since we hold that the great God is in essence simple, invisible, and

incorporeal, Himself pure intelligence, or something transcending

intelligence and existence, we can never say that God is apprehended by

any other means than through the intelligence which is formed in His

image, though now, in the words of Paul, “we see in a glass obscurely,

but then face to face.”[1498] And if we use the expression “face to

face,” let no one pervert its meaning; but let it be explained by this

passage, “Beholding with open face the glory of the Lord, we are changed

into the same image, from glory to glory,” which shows that we do not

use the word in this connection to mean the visible face, but take it

figuratively, in the same way as we have shown that the eyes, the ears,

and the other parts of the body are employed. And it is certain that a

man—I mean a soul using a body, otherwise called “the inner man,” or

simply “the soul”—would answer, not as Celsus makes us answer, but as

the man of God himself teaches. It is certain also that a Christian will

not make use of “the language of the flesh,” having learnt as he has “to

mortify the deeds of the body”[1499] by the spirit, and “to bear about

in his body the dying of Jesus;”[1500] and “mortify your members which

are on the earth,”[1501] and with a true knowledge of these words, “My

Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is

flesh,”[1502] and again, “They that are in the flesh cannot please

God,”[1503] he strives in every way to live no longer according to the

flesh, but only according to the Spirit.

Footnote 1498:

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

Footnote 1499:

Rom. viii. 13.

Footnote 1500:

2 Cor. iv. 10.

Footnote 1501:

Col. iii. 5.

Footnote 1502:

Gen. vi. 3.

Footnote 1503:

Rom. viii. 8.

Chapter XXXIX.

Now let us hear what it is that he invites us to learn, that we may

ascertain from him how we are to know God, although he thinks that his

words are beyond the capacity of all Christians. “Let them hear,” says

he, “if they are able to do so.” We have then to consider what the

philosopher wishes us to hear from him. But instead of instructing us as

he ought, he abuses us; and while he should have shown his goodwill to

those whom he addresses at the outset of his discourse, he stigmatizes

as “a cowardly race” men who would rather die than abjure Christianity

even by a word, and who are ready to suffer every form of torture, or

any kind of death. He also applies to us the epithet “carnal” or

“flesh-indulging,” “although,” as we are wont to say, “we have known

Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth we know Him no more,”[1504]

and although we are so ready to lay down our lives for the cause of

religion, that no philosopher could lay aside his robes more readily. He

then addresses to us these words: “If, instead of exercising your

senses, you look upwards with the soul; if, turning away the eye of the

body, you open the eye of the mind, thus and thus only you will be able

to see God.” He is not aware that this reference to the two eyes, the

eye of the body and the eye of the mind, which he has borrowed from the

Greeks, was in use among our own writers; for Moses, in his account of

the creation of the world, introduces man before his transgression as

both seeing and not seeing: seeing, when it is said of the woman, “The

woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to

the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise;”[1505] and again

not seeing, as when he introduces the serpent saying to the woman, as if

she and her husband had been blind, “God knows that on the day that ye

eat thereof your eyes shall be opened;”[1506] and also when it is said,

“They did eat, and the eyes of both of them were opened.”[1507] The eyes

of sense were then opened, which they had done well to keep shut, that

they might not be distracted, and hindered from seeing with the eyes of

the mind; and it was those eyes of the mind which in consequence of sin,

as I imagine, were then closed, with which they had up to that time

enjoyed the delight of beholding God and His paradise. This twofold kind

of vision in us was familiar to our Saviour, who says, “For judgment I

am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that

they which see might be made blind,”[1508]—meaning by the eyes that see

not the eyes of the mind, which are enlightened by His teaching; and the

eyes which see are the eyes of sense, which His words do render blind,

in order that the soul may look without distraction upon proper objects.

All true Christians therefore have the eye of the mind sharpened, and

the eye of sense closed; so that each one, according to the degree in

which his better eye is quickened, and the eye of sense darkened, sees

and knows the Supreme God, and His Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and so

forth.

Footnote 1504:

2 Cor. v. 16.

Footnote 1505:

Gen. iii. 6.

Footnote 1506:

Gen. iii. 5.

Footnote 1507:

Gen. iii. 7.

Footnote 1508:

John ix. 39.

Chapter XL.

Next to the remarks of Celsus on which we have already commented, come

others which he addresses to all Christians, but which, if applicable to

any, ought to be addressed to persons whose doctrines differ entirely

from those taught by Jesus. For it is the Ophians who, as we have before

shown,[1509] have utterly renounced Jesus, and perhaps some others of

similar opinions who are “the impostors and jugglers, leading men away

to idols and phantoms;” and it is they who with miserable pains learn

off the names of the heavenly doorkeepers. These words are therefore

quite inappropriate as addressed to Christians: “If you seek one to be

your guide along this way, you must shun all deceivers and jugglers, who

will introduce you to phantoms.” And, as though quite unaware that these

impostors entirely agree with him, and are not behind him in speaking

ill of Jesus and His religion, he thus continues, confounding us with

them: “otherwise you will be acting the most ridiculous part, if, whilst

you pronounce imprecations upon those other recognised gods, treating

them as idols, you yet do homage to a more wretched idol than any of

these, which indeed is not even an idol or a phantom, but a dead man,

and you seek a father like to himself.” That he is ignorant of the wide

difference between our opinions and those of the inventors of these

fables, and that he imagines the charges which he makes against them

applicable to us, is evident from the following passage: “For the sake

of such a monstrous delusion, and in support of those wonderful

advisers, and those wonderful words which you address to the lion, to

the amphibious creature, to the creature in the form of an ass, and to

others, for the sake of those divine doorkeepers whose names you commit

to memory with such pains, in such a cause as this you suffer cruel

tortures, and perish at the stake.” Surely, then, he is unaware that

none of those who regard beings in the form of an ass, a lion, or an

amphibious animal, as the doorkeepers or guides on the way to heaven,

ever expose themselves to death in defence of that which they think the

truth. That excess of zeal, if it may be so called, which leads us for

the sake of religion to submit to every kind of death, and to perish at

the stake, is ascribed by Celsus to those who endure no such sufferings;

and he reproaches us who suffer crucifixion for our faith, with

believing in fabulous creatures—in the lion, the amphibious animal, and

other such monsters. If we reject all these fables, it is not out of

deference to Celsus, for we have never at any time held any such

fancies; but it is in accordance with the teaching of Jesus that we

oppose all such notions, and will not allow to Michael, or to any others

that have been referred to, a form and figure of that sort.

Footnote 1509:

See Book vi. chap. xxx. etc.

Chapter XLI.

But let us consider who those persons are whose guidance Celsus would

have us to follow, so that we may not be in want of guides who are

recommended both by their antiquity and sanctity. He refers us to

divinely inspired poets, as he calls them, to wise men and philosophers,

without mentioning their names; so that, after promising to point out

those who should guide us, he simply hands us over in a general way to

divinely inspired poets, wise men, and philosophers. If he had specified

their names in particular, we should have felt ourselves bound to show

him that he wished to give us as guides men who were blinded to the

truth, and who must therefore lead us into error; or that if not wholly

blinded, yet they are in error in many matters of belief. But whether

Orpheus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or even Homer himself, and Hesiod, are

the persons whom he means by “inspired poets,” let any one show how

those who follow their guidance walk in a better way, or lead a more

excellent life, than those who, being taught in the school of Jesus

Christ, have rejected all images and statues, and even all Jewish

superstition, that they may look upward through the Word of God to the

one God, who is the Father of the Word. Who, then, are those wise men

and philosophers from whom Celsus would have us to learn so many divine

truths, and for whom we are to give up Moses the servant of God, the

prophets of the Creator of the world, who have spoken so many things by

a truly divine inspiration, and even Him who has given light and taught

the way of piety to the whole human race, so that no one can reproach

Him if he remains without a share in the knowledge of His mysteries?

Such, indeed, was the abounding love which He had for men, that He gave

to the more learned a theology capable of raising the soul far above all

earthly things; while with no less consideration He comes down to the

weaker capacities of ignorant men, of simple women, of slaves, and, in

short, of all those who from Jesus alone could have received that help

for the better regulation of their lives which is supplied by His

instructions in regard to the Divine Being, adapted to their wants and

capacities.

Chapter XLII.

Celsus next refers us to Plato as to a more effective teacher of

theological truth, and quotes the following passage from the _Timœus_:

“It is a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of this universe;

and after having found Him, it is impossible to make Him known to all.”

To which he himself adds this remark: “You perceive, then, how divine

men seek after the way of truth, and how well Plato knew that it was

impossible for all men to walk in it. But as wise men have found it for

the express purpose of being able to convey to us some notion of Him who

is the first, the unspeakable Being,—a notion, namely, which may

represent Him to us through the medium of other objects,—they endeavour

either by synthesis, which is the combining of various qualities, or by

analysis, which is the separation and setting aside of some qualities,

or finally by analogy;—in these ways, I say, they endeavour to set

before us that which it is impossible to express in words. I should

therefore be surprised if you could follow in that course, since you are

so completely wedded to the flesh as to be incapable of seeing aught but

what is impure.” These words of Plato are noble and admirable; but see

if Scripture does not give us an example of a regard for mankind still

greater in God the Word, who was “in the beginning with God,” and “who

was made flesh,” in order that He might reveal to all men truths which,

according to Plato, it would be impossible to make known to all men,

even after he had found them himself. Plato may say that “it is a hard

thing to find out the Creator and Father of this universe;” by which

language he implies that it is not wholly beyond the power of human

nature to attain to such a knowledge as is either worthy of God, or if

not, is far beyond that which is commonly attained (although if it were

true that Plato or any other of the Greeks had found God, they would

never have given homage and worship, or ascribed the name of God, to any

other than to Him: they would have abandoned all others, and would not

have associated with this great God objects which can have nothing in

common with Him). For ourselves, we maintain that human nature is in no

way able to seek after God, or to attain a clear knowledge of Him

without the help of Him whom it seeks. He makes Himself known to those

who, after doing all that their powers will allow, confess that they

need help from Him, who discovers Himself to those whom He approves, in

so far as it is possible for man and the soul still dwelling in the body

to know God.

Chapter XLIII.

Observe that when Plato says, that “after having found out the Creator

and Father of the universe, it is impossible to make Him known to all

men,” he does not speak of Him as unspeakable, and as incapable of being

expressed in words. On the contrary, he implies that He may be spoken

of, and that there are a few to whom He may be made known. But Celsus,

as if forgetting the language which he had just quoted from Plato,

immediately gives God the name of “the unspeakable.” He says: “since the

wise men have found out this way, in order to be able to give us some

idea of the First of Beings, who is unspeakable.” For ourselves, we hold

that not God alone is unspeakable, but other things also which are

inferior to Him. Such are the things which Paul labours to express when

he says, “I heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to

utter,”[1510] where the word “heard” is used in the sense of

“understood;” as in the passage, “He who hath ears to hear, let him

hear.” We also hold that it is a hard matter to see the Creator and

Father of the universe; but it is possible to see Him in the way thus

referred to, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see

God;”[1511] and not only so, but also in the sense of the words of Him

“who is the image of the invisible God;” “He who hath seen me hath seen

the Father who sent me.”[1512] No sensible person could suppose that

these last words were spoken in reference to His bodily presence, which

was open to the view of all; otherwise all those who said, “Crucify him,

crucify him,” and Pilate, who had power over the humanity of Jesus, were

among those who saw God the Father, which is absurd. Moreover, that

these words, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father who sent me,”

are not to be taken in their grosser sense, is plain from the answer

which He gave to Philip, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet

dost thou not know me, Philip?” after Philip had asked, “Show us the

Father, and it sufficeth us.” He, then, who perceives how these words,

“The Word was made flesh,” are to be understood of the only-begotten Son

of God, the first-born of all creation, will also understand how, in

seeing the image of the invisible God, we see “the Creator and Father of

the universe.”

Footnote 1510:

2 Cor. xii. 4.

Footnote 1511:

Matt. v. 8.

Footnote 1512:

John xiv. 9.

Chapter XLIV.

Celsus supposes that we may arrive at a knowledge of God either by

combining or separating certain things after the methods which

mathematicians call synthesis and analysis, or again by analogy, which

is employed by them also, and that in this way we may as it were gain

admission to the chief good. But when the Word of God says, “No man

knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal

Him,”[1513] He declares that no one can know God but by the help of

divine grace coming from above, with a certain divine inspiration.

Indeed, it is reasonable to suppose that the knowledge of God is beyond

the reach of human nature, and hence the many errors into which men have

fallen in their views of God. It is, then, through the goodness and love

of God to mankind, and by a marvellous exercise of divine grace to those

whom He saw in His foreknowledge, and knew that they would walk worthy

of Him who had made Himself known to them, and that they would never

swerve from a faithful attachment to His service, although they were

condemned to death or held up to ridicule by those who, in ignorance of

what true religion is, give that name to what deserves to be called

anything rather than religion. God doubtless saw the pride and arrogance

of those who, with contempt for all others, boast of their knowledge of

God, and of their profound acquaintance with divine things obtained from

philosophy, but who still, not less even than the most ignorant, run

after their images, and temples, and famous mysteries; and seeing this,

He “has chosen the foolish things of this world”[1514]—the simplest of

Christians, who lead, however, a life of greater moderation and purity

than many philosophers—“to confound the wise,” who are not ashamed to

address inanimate things as gods or images of the gods. For what

reasonable man can refrain from smiling when he sees that one who has

learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or

the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them his prayers, or

imagines that by gazing upon these material things he can ascend from

the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial. But a

Christian, even of the common people, is assured that every place forms

part of the universe, and that the whole universe is God’s temple. In

whatever part of the world he is, he prays; but he rises above the

universe, “shutting the eyes of sense, and raising upwards the eyes of

the soul.” And he stops not at the vault of heaven; but passing in

thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and

having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, he offers

prayers to God. But he prays for no trivial blessings, for he has learnt

from Jesus to seek for nothing small or mean, that is, sensible objects,

but to ask only for what is great and truly divine; and these things God

grants to us, to lead us to that blessedness which is found only with

Him through His Son, the Word, who is God.

Footnote 1513:

Matt. xi. 27.

Footnote 1514:

1 Cor. i. 27.

Chapter XLV.

But let us see further what the things are which he proposes to teach

us, if indeed we can comprehend them, since he speaks of us as being

“utterly wedded to the flesh;” although if we live well, and in

accordance with the teaching of Jesus, we hear this said of us: “Ye are

not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwelleth in

you.”[1515] He says also that we look upon nothing that is pure,

although our endeavour is to keep even our thoughts free from all

defilement of sin, and although in prayer we say, “Create in me a clean

heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,”[1516] so that we may

behold Him with that “pure heart” to which alone is granted the

privilege of seeing Him. This, then, is what he proposes for our

instruction: “Things are either _intelligible_, which we call

substance—being; or _visible_, which we call _becoming_:[1517] with the

former is truth; from the latter arises error. Truth is the object of

knowledge; truth and error form opinion. Intelligible objects are known

by the reason, visible objects by the eyes; the action of the reason is

called intelligent perception, that of the eyes vision. As, then, among

visible things the sun is neither the eye nor vision, but that which

enables the eye to see, and renders vision possible, and in consequence

of it visible things are seen, all sensible things exist, and itself is

rendered visible; so among things intelligible, that which is neither

reason, nor intelligent perception, nor knowledge, is yet the cause

which enables the reason to know, which renders intelligent perception

possible; and in consequence of it knowledge arises, all things

intelligible, truth itself and substance have their existence; and

itself, which is above all these things, becomes in some ineffable way

intelligible. These things are offered to the consideration of the

intelligent; and if even you can understand any of them, it is well. And

if you think that a Divine Spirit has descended from God to announce

divine things to men, it is doubtless this same Spirit that reveals

these truths, and it was under the same influence that men of old made

known many important truths. But if you cannot comprehend these things,

then keep silence; do not expose your own ignorance, and do not accuse

of blindness those who see, or of lameness those who run, while you

yourselves are utterly lamed and mutilated in mind, and lead a merely

animal life—the life of the body, which is the dead part of our nature.”

Footnote 1515:

Rom. viii. 9.

Footnote 1516:

Ps. li. 10.

Footnote 1517:

γένεσις. For the distinction between οὐσία and γένεσις, see Plato’s

_Sophista_, p. 246.

Chapter XLVI.

We are careful not to oppose fair arguments even if they proceed from

those who are not of our faith; we strive not to be captious, or to seek

to overthrow any sound reasonings. But here we have to reply to those

who slander the character of persons wishing to do their best in the

service of God, who accepts the faith which the meanest place in Him, as

well as the more refined and intelligent piety of the learned; seeing

that both alike address to the Creator of the world their prayers and

thanksgivings through the High Priest who has set before men the nature

of pure religion. We say, then, that those who are stigmatized as “lamed

and mutilated in spirit,” as “living only for the sake of the body which

is dead,” are persons whose endeavour it is to say with sincerity: “For

though we live[1518] in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh;

for the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but mighty through God.”

It is for those who throw out such vile accusations against men who

desire to be God’s servants, to beware lest, by the calumnies which they

cast upon others who strive to live well, they “lame” their own souls,

and “mutilate” the inner man, by severing from it that justice and

moderation of mind which the Creator has planted in the nature of all

His rational creatures. As for those, however, who, along with other

lessons given by the Divine Word, have learned and practised this, “when

reviled to bless, when persecuted to endure, when defamed to

entreat,”[1519] they may be said to be walking in spirit in the ways of

uprightness, to be purifying and setting in order the whole soul. They

distinguish—and to them the distinction is not one of words

merely—between “substance,” or that which is, and that which is

“becoming;” between things apprehended by reason, and things apprehended

by sense; and they connect truth with the one, and avoid the errors

arising out of the other; looking, as they have been taught, not at the

things “becoming” or phenomenal, which are seen, and therefore

temporary, but at better things than these, whether we call them

“substance,” or “spiritual” things, as being apprehended by reason, or

“invisible,” because they lie out of the reach of the senses. The

disciples of Jesus regard these phenomenal things only that they may use

them as steps to ascend to the knowledge of the things of reason. For

“the invisible things of God,” that is, the objects of the reason, “from

the creation of the world are clearly seen” by the reason, “being

understood by the things that are made.” And when they have risen from

the created things of this world to the invisible things of God, they do

not stay there; but after they have sufficiently exercised their minds

upon these, and have understood their nature, they ascend to “the

eternal power of God,” in a word, to His divinity. For they know that

God, in His love to men, has “manifested” His truth, and “that which is

known of Him,” not only to those who devote themselves to His service,

but also to some who are far removed from the purity of worship and

service which He requires; and that some of those who by the providence

of God had attained a knowledge of these truths, were yet doing things

unworthy of that knowledge, and “holding the truth in unrighteousness,”

and who are unable to find any excuse before God after the knowledge of

such great truths which He has given them.

Footnote 1518:

1 Cor. x. 3, 4. The received text has “walk” instead of “live.”

Footnote 1519:

1 Cor. iv. 11, 12.

Chapter XLVII.

For Scripture testifies, in regard to those who have a knowledge of

those things of which Celsus speaks, and who profess a philosophy

founded on these principles, that they, “when they knew God, glorified

Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their

imaginations;” and notwithstanding the bright light of knowledge with

which God had enlightened them, “their foolish heart” was carried away,

and became “darkened.”[1520] Thus we may see how those who accounted

themselves wise gave proofs of great folly, when, after such grand

arguments delivered in the schools on God and on things apprehended by

the reason, they “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an

image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed

beasts, and creeping things.”[1521] As, then, they lived in a way

unworthy of the knowledge which they had received from God, His

providence leaving them to themselves, they were given “up to

uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonour their

own bodies,”[1522] in shamelessness and licentiousness, because they

“changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the

creature more than the Creator.”

Footnote 1520:

Rom. i. 21.

Footnote 1521:

Rom. i. 25.

Footnote 1522:

Rom. i. 24, 25.

Chapter XLVIII.

But those who are despised for their ignorance, and set down as fools

and abject slaves, no sooner commit themselves to God’s guidance by

accepting the teaching of Jesus, than, so far from defiling themselves

by licentious indulgence or the gratification of shameless passion, they

in many cases, like perfect priests, for whom such pleasures have no

charm, keep themselves in act and in thought in a state of virgin

purity. The Athenians have one hierophant, who, not having confidence in

his power to restrain his passions within the limits he prescribed for

himself, determined to check them at their seat by the application of

hemlock; and thus he was accounted pure, and fit for the celebration of

religious worship among the Athenians. But among Christians may be found

men who have no need of hemlock to fit them for the pure service of God,

and for whom the Word in place of hemlock is able to drive all evil

desires from their thoughts, so that they may present their prayers to

the Divine Being. And attached to the other so-called gods are a select

number of virgins, who are guarded by men, or it may be not guarded (for

that is not the point in question at present), and who are supposed to

live in purity for the honour of the god they serve. But among

Christians, those who maintain a perpetual virginity do so for no human

honours, for no fee or reward, from no motive of vainglory; but “as they

choose to retain God in their knowledge,”[1523] they are preserved by

God in a spirit well-pleasing to Him, and in the discharge of every

duty, being filled with all righteousness and goodness.

Footnote 1523:

Rom. i. 28.

Chapter XLIX.

What I have now said, then, is offered not for the purpose of cavilling

with any right opinions or sound doctrines held even by Greeks, but with

the desire of showing that the same things, and indeed much better and

diviner things than these, have been said by those divine men, the

prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus. These truths are fully

investigated by all who wish to attain a perfect knowledge of

Christianity, and who know that “the mouth of the righteous speaketh

wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment; the law of his God is in his

heart.”[1524] But even in regard to those who, either from deficiency of

knowledge or want of inclination, or from not having Jesus to lead them

to a rational view of religion, have not gone into these deep questions,

we find that they believe in the Most High God, and in His only-begotten

Son, the Word and God, and that they often exhibit in their character a

high degree of gravity, of purity, and integrity; while those who call

themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the

filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is

unseemly.”[1525]

Footnote 1524:

Ps. xxxvii. 30, 31.

Footnote 1525:

Rom. i. 27.

Chapter L.

Celsus has not explained how error accompanies the “becoming,” or

product of generation; nor has he expressed himself with sufficient

clearness to enable us to compare his ideas with ours, and to pass

judgment on them. But the prophets, who have given some wise suggestions

on the subject of things produced by generation, tell us that a

sacrifice for sin was offered even for new-born infants, as not being

free from sin. They say, “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my

mother conceive me;”[1526] also, “They are estranged from the womb;”

which is followed by the singular expression, “They go astray as soon as

they are born, speaking lies.”[1527] Besides, our wise men have such a

contempt for all sensible objects, that sometimes they speak of all

material things as vanity: thus, “For the creature was made subject to

vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that subjected the same in

hope;”[1528] at other times as vanity of vanities, “Vanity of vanities,

saith the Preacher, all is vanity.”[1529] Who has given so severe an

estimate of the life of the human soul here on earth, as he who says:

“Verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity?”[1530] He

does not hesitate at all as to the difference between the present life

of the soul and that which it is to lead hereafter. He does not say,

“Who knows if to die is not to live, and if to live is not death?”[1531]

But he boldly proclaims the truth, and says, “Our soul is bowed down to

the dust;”[1532] and, “Thou hast brought me into the dust of

death;”[1533] and similarly, “Who will deliver me from the body of this

death?”[1534] also, “Who will change the body of our humiliation.”[1535]

It is a prophet also who says, “Thou hast brought us down in a place of

affliction;”[1536] meaning by the “place of affliction” this earthly

region, to which Adam, that is to say, man, came after he was driven out

of paradise for sin. Observe also how well the different life of the

soul here and hereafter has been recognised by him who says, “Now we see

in a glass, obscurely, but then face to face;”[1537] and, “Whilst we are

in our home in the body, we are away from our home in the Lord;”

wherefore “we are well content to go from our home in the body, and to

come to our home with the Lord.”[1538]

Footnote 1526:

Ps. li. 5.

Footnote 1527:

Ps. lviii. 3.

Footnote 1528:

Rom. viii. 20.

Footnote 1529:

Eccles. i. 2.

Footnote 1530:

Ps. xxxix. 5.

Footnote 1531:

Euripides.

Footnote 1532:

Ps. xliv. 25.

Footnote 1533:

Ps. xxii. 15.

Footnote 1534:

Rom. vii. 24.

Footnote 1535:

Phil. iii. 21.

Footnote 1536:

Ps. xliii. 19, LXX.

Footnote 1537:

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

Footnote 1538:

2 Cor. v. 6, 8.

Chapter LI.

But what need is there to quote any more passages against Celsus, in

order to prove that his words contain nothing which was not said long

before among ourselves, since that has been sufficiently established by

what we have said? It seems that what follows has some reference to

this: “If you think that a Divine Spirit has descended from God to

announce divine things to men, it is doubtless this same Spirit that

reveals these truths; and it was under the same influence that men of

old made known many important truths.” But he does not know how great is

the difference between those things and the clear and certain teaching

of those who say to us, “Thine incorruptible spirit is in all things,

wherefore God chasteneth them by little and little that offend;”[1539]

and of those who, among their other instructions, teach us that the

words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,”[1540] refer to a degree of spiritual

influence higher than that in the passage, “Ye shall be baptized with

the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”[1541] But it is a difficult matter,

even after much careful consideration, to perceive the difference

between those who have received a knowledge of the truth and a notion of

God at different intervals and for short periods of time, and those who

are more fully inspired by God, who have constant communion with Him,

and are always led by His Spirit. Had Celsus set himself to understand

this, he would not have reproached us with ignorance, or forbidden us to

characterize as “blind” those who believe that religion shows itself in

such products of man’s mechanical art as images. For every one who sees

with the eyes of his soul serves the Divine Being in no other way than

in that which leads him ever to have regard to the Creator of all, to

address his prayers to Him alone, and to do all things as in the sight

of God, who sees us altogether, even to our thoughts. Our earnest desire

then is both to see for ourselves, and to be leaders of the blind, to

bring them to the Word of God, that He may take away from their minds

the blindness of ignorance. And if our actions are worthy of Him who

taught His disciples, “Ye are the light of the world,”[1542] and of the

Word, who says, “The light shineth in darkness,”[1543] then we shall be

light to those who are in darkness; we shall give wisdom to those who

are without it, and we shall instruct the ignorant.

Footnote 1539:

Wisd. xii. 1, 2.

Footnote 1540:

John xx. 22.

Footnote 1541:

Acts i. 5.

Footnote 1542:

Matt. v. 14.

Footnote 1543:

John i. 5.

Chapter LII.

And let not Celsus be angry if we describe as lame and mutilated in soul

those who run to the temples as to places having a real sacredness, and

who cannot see that no mere mechanical work of man can be truly sacred.

Those whose piety is grounded on the teaching of Jesus also run until

they come to the end of their course, when they can say in all truth and

confidence: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I

have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of

righteousness.”[1544] And each of us runs “not as uncertain,” and he so

fights with evil “not as one beating the air,”[1545] but as against

those who are subject to “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit

that now worketh in the children of disobedience.”[1546] Celsus may

indeed say of us that we “live with the body which is a dead thing;” but

we have learnt, “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye by

the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live;”[1547] and,

“If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”[1548] Would

that we might convince him by our actions that he did us wrong, when he

said that we “live with the body which is dead!”

Footnote 1544:

2 Tim. iv. 7.

Footnote 1545:

1 Cor. ix. 26.

Footnote 1546:

Eph. ii. 2.

Footnote 1547:

Rom. viii. 13.

Footnote 1548:

Gal. v. 25.

Chapter LIII.

After these remarks of Celsus, which we have done our best to refute, he

goes on to address us thus: “Seeing you are so eager for some novelty,

how much better it would have been if you had chosen as the object of

your zealous homage some one of those who died a glorious death, and

whose divinity might have received the support of some myth to

perpetuate his memory! Why, if you were not satisfied with Hercules or

Æsculapius, and other heroes of antiquity, you had Orpheus, who was

confessedly a divinely inspired man, who died a violent death. But

perhaps some others have taken him up before you. You may then take

Anaxarchus, who, when cast into a mortar, and beaten most barbarously,

showed a noble contempt for his suffering, and said, ‘Beat, beat the

shell of Anaxarchus, for himself you do not beat,’—a speech surely of a

spirit truly divine. But others were before you in following his

interpretation of the laws of nature. Might you not, then, take

Epictetus, who, when his master was twisting his leg, said, smiling and

unmoved, ‘You will break my leg;’ and when it was broken, he added, ‘Did

I not tell you that you would break it?’ What saying equal to these did

your god utter under suffering? If you had said even of the Sibyl, whose

authority some of you acknowledge, that she was a child of God, you

would have said something more reasonable. But you have had the

presumption to include in her writings many impious things, and set up

as a god one who ended a most infamous life by a most miserable death.

How much more suitable than he would have been Jonah in the whale’s

belly, or Daniel delivered from the wild beasts, or any of a still more

portentous kind!”

Chapter LIV.

But since he sends us to Hercules, let him repeat to us any of his

sayings, and let him justify his shameful subjection to Omphale. Let him

show that divine honours should be paid to one who, like a highway

robber, carries off a farmer’s ox by force, and afterwards devours it,

amusing himself meanwhile with the curses of the owner; in memory of

which even to this day sacrifices offered to the demon of Hercules are

accompanied with curses. Again he proposes Æsculapius to us, as if to

oblige us to repeat what we have said already; but we forbear. In regard

to Orpheus, what does he admire in him to make him assert that, by

common consent, he was regarded as a divinely inspired man, and lived a

noble life? I am greatly deceived if it is not the desire which Celsus

has to oppose us and put down Jesus that leads him to sound forth the

praises of Orpheus; and whether, when he made himself acquainted with

his impious fables about the gods, he did not cast them aside as

deserving, even more than the poems of Homer, to be excluded from a

well-ordered state. For, indeed, Orpheus says much worse things than

Homer of those whom they call gods. Noble, indeed, it was in Anaxarchus

to say to Aristocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, “Beat on, beat the shell of

Anaxarchus,” but it is the one admirable incident in the life of

Anaxarchus known to the Greeks; and although, on the strength of that,

some like Celsus might deservedly honour the man for his courage, yet to

look up to Anaxarchus as a god is not consistent with reason. He also

directs us to Epictetus, whose firmness is justly admired, although his

saying when his leg was broken by his master is not to be compared with

the marvellous acts and words of Jesus which Celsus refuses to believe;

and these words were accompanied by such a divine power, that even to

this day they convert not only some of the more ignorant and simple, but

many also of the most enlightened of men.

Chapter LV.

When, to his enumeration of those to whom he would send us, he adds,

“What saying equal to these did your god utter under sufferings?” we

would reply, that the silence of Jesus under scourgings, and amidst all

His sufferings, spoke more for His firmness and submission than all that

was said by the Greeks when beset by calamity. Perhaps Celsus may

believe what was recorded with all sincerity by trustworthy men, who,

while giving a truthful account of all the wonders performed by Jesus,

specify among these the silence which He preserved when subjected to

scourgings; showing the same singular meekness under the insults which

were heaped upon Him, when they put upon Him the purple robe, and set

the crown of thorns upon His head, and when they put in His hand a reed

in place of a sceptre: no unworthy or angry word escaped Him against

those who subjected Him to such outrages. Since, then, He received the

scourgings with silent firmness, and bore with meekness all the insults

of those who outraged Him, it cannot be said, as is said by some, that

it was in cowardly weakness that He uttered the words: “Father, if it be

possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as

Thou wilt.”[1549] The prayer which seems to be contained in these words

for the removal of what He calls “the cup” bears a sense which we have

elsewhere examined and set forth at large. But taking it in its more

obvious sense, consider if it be not a prayer offered to God with all

piety. For no man naturally regards anything which may befall him as

necessary and inevitable; though he may submit to what is not

inevitable, if occasion requires. Besides, these words, “nevertheless,

not as I will, but as Thou wilt,” are not the language of one who

yielded to necessity, but of one who was contented with what was

befalling Him, and who submitted with reverence to the arrangements of

Providence.

Footnote 1549:

Matt. xxvi. 39.

Chapter LVI.

Celsus then adds, for what reason I know not, that instead of calling

Jesus the Son of God, we had better have given that honour to the Sibyl,

in whose books he maintains we have interpolated many impious

statements, though he does not mention what those interpolations are. He

might have proved his assertion by producing some older copies which are

free from the interpolations which he attributes to us; but he does not

do so even to justify his statement that these passages are of an

impious character. Moreover, he again speaks of the life of Jesus as “a

most infamous life,” as he has done before, not once or twice, but many

times, although he does not stay to specify any of the actions of His

life which he thinks most infamous. He seems to think that he may in

this way make assertions without proving them, and rail against one of

whom he knows nothing. Had he set himself to show what sort of infamy he

found in the actions of Jesus, we should have repelled the several

charges brought against Him. Jesus did indeed meet with a most sad

death; but the same might be said of Socrates, and of Anaxarchus, whom

he had just mentioned, and a multitude of others. If the death of Jesus

was a miserable one, was not that of the others so too? And if their

death was not miserable, can it be said that the death of Jesus was? You

see from this, then, that the object of Celsus is to vilify the

character of Jesus; and I can only suppose that he is driven to it by

some spirit akin to those whose power has been broken and vanquished by

Jesus, and which now finds itself deprived of the smoke and blood on

which it lived, whilst deceiving those who sought for God here upon

earth in images, instead of looking up to the true God, the Governor of

all things.

Chapter LVII.

After this, as though his object was to swell the size of his book, he

advises us “to choose Jonah rather than Jesus as our God;” thus setting

Jonah, who preached repentance to the single city of Nineveh, before

Jesus, who has preached repentance to the whole world, and with much

greater results. He would have us to regard as God a man who, by a

strange miracle, passed three days and three nights in the whale’s

belly; and he is unwilling that He who submitted to death for the sake

of men, He to whom God bore testimony through the prophets, and who has

done great things in heaven and earth, should receive on that ground

honour second only to that which is given to the Most High God.

Moreover, Jonah was swallowed by the whale for refusing to preach as God

had commanded him; while Jesus suffered death for men after He had given

the instructions which God wished Him to give. Still further, he adds

that Daniel rescued from the lions is more worthy of our adoration than

Jesus, who subdued the fierceness of every opposing power, and gave to

us “authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power

of the enemy.”[1550] Finally, having no other names to offer us, he

adds, “and others of a still more monstrous kind,”—thus casting a slight

upon both Jonah and Daniel; for the spirit which is in Celsus cannot

speak well of the righteous.

Footnote 1550:

Luke x. 19.

Chapter LVIII.

Let us now consider what follows. “They have also,” says he, “a precept

to this effect, that we ought not to avenge ourselves on one who injures

us, or, as he expresses it, ‘Whosoever shall strike thee on the one

cheek, turn to him the other also.’ This is an ancient saying, which had

been admirably expressed long before, and which they have only reported

in a coarser way. For Plato introduces Socrates conversing with Crito as

follows: ‘Must we never do injustice to any?’ ‘Certainly not.’ ‘And

since we must never do injustice, must we not return injustice for an

injustice that has been done to us, as most people think?’ ‘It seems to

me that we should not.’ ‘But tell me, Crito, may we do evil to any one

or not?’ ‘Certainly not, O Socrates.’ ‘Well, is it just, as is commonly

said, for one who has suffered wrong to do wrong in return, or is it

unjust?’ ‘It is unjust. Yes; for to do harm to a man is the same as to

do him injustice.’ ‘You speak truly. We must then not do injustice in

return for injustice, nor must we do evil to any one, whatever evil we

may have suffered from him.’ Thus Plato speaks; and he adds, ‘Consider,

then, whether you are at one with me, and whether, starting from this

principle, we may not come to the conclusion that it is never right to

do injustice, even in return for an injustice which has been received;

or whether, on the other hand, you differ from me, and do not admit the

principle from which we started. That has always been my opinion, and is

so still.’[1551] Such are the sentiments of Plato, and indeed they were

held by divine men before his time. But let this suffice as one example

of the way in which this and other truths have been borrowed and

corrupted. Any one who wishes can easily by searching find more of

them.”

Footnote 1551:

Plato’s _Crito_, p. 49.

Chapter LIX.

When Celsus here or elsewhere finds himself unable to dispute the truth

of what we say, but avers that the same things were said by the Greeks,

our answer is, that if the doctrine be sound, and the effect of it good,

whether it was made known to the Greeks by Plato or any of the wise men

of Greece, or whether it was delivered to the Jews by Moses or any of

the prophets, or whether it was given to the Christians in the recorded

teaching of Jesus Christ, or in the instructions of His apostles, that

does not affect the value of the truth communicated. It is no objection

to the principles of Jews or Christians, that the same things were also

said by the Greeks, especially if it be proved that the writings of the

Jews are older than those of the Greeks. And further, we are not to

imagine that a truth adorned with the graces of Grecian speech is

necessarily better than the same when expressed in the more humble and

unpretending language used by Jews and Christians, although indeed the

language of the Jews, in which the prophets wrote the books which have

come down to us, has a grace of expression peculiar to the genius of the

Hebrew tongue. And even if we were required to show that the same

doctrines have been better expressed among the Jewish prophets or in

Christian writings, however paradoxical it may seem, we are prepared to

prove this by an illustration taken from different kinds of food, and

from the different modes of preparing them. Suppose that a kind of food

which is wholesome and nutritious has been prepared and seasoned in such

a way as to be fit, not for the simple tastes of peasants and poor

labourers, but for those only who are rich and dainty in their tastes.

Suppose, again, that that same food is prepared not to suit the tastes

of the more delicate, but for the peasants, the poor labourers, and the

common people generally, in short, so that myriads of persons might eat

of it. Now if, according to the supposition, the food prepared in the

one way promotes the health of those only who are styled the better

classes, while none of the others could taste it, whereas when prepared

in the other way it promoted the health of great multitudes of men,

which shall we esteem as most contributing to the public welfare,—those

who prepare food for persons of mark, or those who prepare it for the

multitudes?—taking for granted that in both cases the food is equally

wholesome and nourishing; while it is evident that the welfare of

mankind and the common good are promoted better by that physician who

attends to the health of the many, than by one who confines his

attention to a few.

Chapter LX.

Now, after understanding this illustration, we have to apply it to the

qualities of spiritual food with which the rational part of man is

nourished. See, then, if Plato and the wise men among the Greeks, in the

beautiful things they say, are not like those physicians who confine

their attentions to what are called the better classes of society, and

despise the multitude; whereas the prophets among the Jews, and the

disciples of Jesus, who despise mere elegances of style, and what is

called in Scripture “the wisdom of men,” “the wisdom according to the

flesh,” which delights in what is obscure, resemble those who study to

provide the most wholesome food for the largest number of persons. For

this purpose they adapt their language and style to the capacities of

the common people, and avoid whatever would seem foreign to them, lest

by the introduction of strange forms of expression they should produce a

distaste for their teaching. Indeed, if the true use of spiritual food,

to keep up the figure, is to produce in him who partakes of it the

virtues of patience and gentleness, must that discourse not be better

prepared when it produces patience and gentleness in multitudes, or

makes them grow in these virtues, than that which confines its effects

to a select few, supposing that it does really make them gentle and

patient? If a Greek wished by wholesome instruction to benefit people

who understood only Egyptian or Syriac, the first thing that he would do

would be to learn their language; and he would rather pass for a

barbarian among the Greeks, by speaking as the Egyptians or Syrians, in

order to be useful to them, than always remain Greek, and be without the

means of helping them. In the same way the divine nature, having the

purpose of instructing not only those who are reputed to be learned in

the literature of Greece, but also the rest of mankind, accommodated

itself to the capacities of the simple multitudes whom it addressed. It

seeks to win the attention of the more ignorant by the use of language

which is familiar to them, so that they may easily be induced, after

their first introduction, to strive after an acquaintance with the

deeper truths which lie hidden in Scripture. For even the ordinary

reader of Scripture may see that it contains many things which are too

deep to be apprehended at first; but these are understood by such as

devote themselves to a careful study of the divine word, and they become

plain to them in proportion to the pains and zeal which they expend upon

its investigation.

Chapter LXI.

From these remarks it is evident, that when Jesus said “coarsely,” as

Celsus terms it, “To him who shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn

the other also; and if any man be minded to sue thee at the law, and

take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,”[1552] He expressed

Himself in such a way as to make the precept have more practical effect

than the words of Plato in the _Crito_; for the latter is so far from

being intelligible to ordinary persons, that even those have a

difficulty in understanding him, who have been brought up in the schools

of learning, and have been initiated into the famous philosophy of

Greece. It may also be observed, that the precept enjoining patience

under injuries is in no way corrupted or degraded by the plain and

simple language which our Lord employs, but that in this, as in other

cases, it is a mere calumny against our religion which he utters when he

says: “But let this suffice as one example of the way in which this and

other truths have been borrowed and corrupted. Any one who wishes can

easily by searching find more of them.”

Footnote 1552:

Matt. v. 39, 40.

Chapter LXII.

Let us now see what follows. “Let us pass on,” says he, “to another

point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are

like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship

no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the

world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in

these words: ‘I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful

to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly

who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks,

suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.’[1553] Heraclitus also says

in one place: ‘Persons who address prayers to these images act like

those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes

are.’ And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He

certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to

offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes

are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go

further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean

that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or

that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For

who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for

gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or

images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as

representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as

the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that

they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His

own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they

will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and

dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the

beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a

worshipper of God ought not to worship demons.”

Footnote 1553:

Herod. i. 131.

Chapter LXIII.

To this our answer is, that if the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of

Libya, the Seres, who according to Celsus have no god, if those other

most barbarous and impious nations in the world, and if the Persians

even cannot bear the sight of temples, altars, and images, it does not

follow because we cannot suffer them any more than they, that the

grounds on which we object to them are the same as theirs. We must

inquire into the principles on which the objection to temples and images

is founded, in order that we may approve of those who object on sound

principles, and condemn those whose principles are false. For one and

the same thing may be done for different reasons. For example, the

philosophers who follow Zeno of Citium abstain from committing adultery,

the followers of Epicurus do so too, as well as others again who do so

on no philosophical principles; but observe what different reasons

determine the conduct of these different classes. The first consider the

interests of society, and hold it to be forbidden by nature that a man

who is a reasonable being should corrupt a woman whom the laws have

already given to another, and should thus break up the household of

another man. The Epicureans do not reason in this way; but if they

abstain from adultery, it is because, regarding pleasure as the chief

end of man, they perceive that one who gives himself up to adultery,

encounters for the sake of this one pleasure a multitude of obstacles to

pleasure, such as imprisonment, exile, and death itself. They often,

indeed, run considerable risk at the outset, while watching for the

departure from the house of the master and those in his interest. So

that, supposing it possible for a man to commit adultery, and escape the

knowledge of the husband, of his servants, and of others whose esteem he

would forfeit, then the Epicurean would yield to the commission of the

crime for the sake of pleasure. The man of no philosophical system,

again, who abstains from adultery when the opportunity comes to him,

does so generally from dread of the law and its penalties, and not for

the sake of enjoying a greater number of other pleasures. You see, then,

that an act which passes for being one and the same—namely, abstinence

from adultery—is not the same, but differs in different men according to

the motives which actuate it: one man refraining for sound reasons,

another for such bad and impious ones as those of the Epicurean, and the

common person of whom we have spoken.

Chapter LXIV.

As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the

same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according

to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with

those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or

temples, or images. The Scythians, the nomadic Libyans, the godless

Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but

they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former

abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading

the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things

wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a

belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because

they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some

other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may

pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of

sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this

command, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;”[1554]

and this other, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me: thou shalt not

make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in

heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water

under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve

them;”[1555] and again, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him

only shalt thou serve.”[1556] It is in consideration of these and many

other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and

images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than

debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most

High God.

Footnote 1554:

Deut. vi. 13.

Footnote 1555:

Ex. xx. 3, 4.

Footnote 1556:

Matt. iv. 10.

Chapter LXV.

In regard to the Persians, we have already said that though they do not

build temples, yet they worship the sun and the other works of God. This

is forbidden to us, for we have been taught not to worship the creature

instead of the Creator, but to know that “the creation shall be

delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory

of the children of God;” and “the earnest expectation of the creation is

waiting for the revelation of the sons of God;” and “the creation was

made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who made it

subject, in hope.”[1557] We believe, therefore, that things “under the

bondage of corruption,” and “subject to vanity,” which remain in this

condition “in hope” of a better state, ought not in our worship to hold

the place of God, the all-sufficient, and of His Son, the first-born of

all creation. Let this suffice, in addition to what we have already said

of the Persians, who abhor altars and images, but who serve the creature

instead of the Creator. As to the passage quoted by Celsus from

Heraclitus, the purport of which he represents as being, “that it is

childish folly for one to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not

who the gods and heroes are,” we may reply that it is easy to know that

God and the only-begotten Son of God, and those whom God has honoured

with the title of God, and who partake of His divine nature, are very

different from all the gods of the nations which are demons; but it is

not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to

images.

Footnote 1557:

Rom. viii. 19-21.

Chapter LXVI.

And the charge of folly applies not only to those who offer prayers to

images, but also to such as pretend to do so in compliance with the

example of the multitude: and to this class belong the Peripatetic

philosophers and the followers of Epicurus and Democritus. For there is

no falsehood or pretence in the soul which is possessed with true piety

towards God. Another reason also why we abstain from doing honour to

images, is that we may give no support to the notion that the images are

gods. It is on this ground that we condemn Celsus, and all others who,

while admitting that they are not gods, yet, with the reputation of

being wise men, render to them what passes for homage. In this way they

lead into sin the multitude who follow their example, and who worship

these images not simply out of deference to custom, but from a belief

into which they have fallen that they are true gods, and that those are

not to be listened to who hold that the objects of their worship are not

true gods. Celsus, indeed, says that “they do not take them for gods,

but only as offerings dedicated to the gods.” But he does not prove that

they are not rather dedicated to men than, as he says, to the honour of

the gods themselves; for it is clear that they are the offerings of men

who were in error in their views of the Divine Being. Moreover, we do

not imagine that these images are representations of God, for they

cannot represent a being who is invisible and incorporeal. But as Celsus

supposes that we fall into a contradiction, whilst on the one hand we

say that God has not a human form, and on the other we profess to

believe that God made man the image of Himself, and created man the

image of God; our answer is the same as has been given already, that we

hold the resemblance to God to be preserved in the reasonable soul,

which is formed to virtue, although Celsus, who does not see the

difference between “being the image of God,” and “being created after

the image of God,” pretends that we said, “God made man His own image,

and gave him a form like to His own.” But this also has been examined

before.

Chapter LXVII.

His next remark upon the Christians is: “They will admit that these

images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the

honour of certain beings; but they will hold that the beings to whom

they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of

God ought not to worship demons.” If he had been acquainted with the

nature of demons, and with their several operations, whether led on to

them by the conjurations of those who are skilled in the art, or urged

on by their own inclination to act according to their power and

inclination; if, I say, he had thoroughly understood this subject, which

is both wide in extent and difficult for human comprehension, he would

not have condemned us for saying that those who worship the Supreme

Being should not serve demons. For ourselves, so far are we from wishing

to serve demons, that by the use of prayers and other means which we

learn from Scripture, we drive them out of the souls of men, out of

places where they have established themselves, and even sometimes from

the bodies of animals; for even these creatures often suffer from

injuries inflicted upon them by demons.

Chapter LXVIII.

After all that we have already said concerning Jesus, it would be a

useless repetition for us to answer these words of Celsus: “It is easy

to convict them of worshipping not a god, not even demons, but a dead

person.” Leaving, then, this objection for the reason assigned, let us

pass on to what follows: “In the first place, I would ask why we are not

to serve demons? Is it not true that all things are ordered according to

God’s will, and that His providence governs all things? Is not

everything which happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God,

of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, regulated by the law of the

Most High God? Have these not had assigned them various departments of

which they were severally deemed worthy? Is it not just, therefore, that

he who worships God should serve those also to whom God has assigned

such power? Yet it is impossible, he says, for a man to serve many

masters.” Observe here again how he settles at once a number of

questions which require considerable research, and a profound

acquaintance with what is most mysterious in the government of the

universe. For we must inquire into the meaning of the statement, that

“all things are ordered according to God’s will,” and ascertain whether

sins are or are not included among the things which God orders. For if

God’s government extends to sins not only in men, but also in demons and

in any other spiritual beings who are capable of sin, it is for those

who speak in this manner to see how inconvenient is the expression that

“all things are ordered by the will of God.” For it follows from it that

all sins and all their consequences are ordered by the will of God,

which is a different thing from saying that they come to pass with God’s

permission. For if we take the word “ordered” in its proper

signification, and say that “all the results of sin were ordered,” then

it is evident that all things are ordered according to God’s will, and

that all, therefore, who do evil do not offend against His government.

And the same distinction holds in regard to “providence.” When we say

that “the providence of God regulates all things,” we utter a great

truth if we attribute to that providence nothing but what is just and

right. But if we ascribe to the providence of God all things whatsoever,

however unjust they may be, then it is no longer true that the

providence of God regulates all things, unless we refer directly to

God’s providence things which flow as results from His arrangements.

Celsus maintains also, that “whatever happens in the universe, whether

it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, is

regulated by the law of the Most High God.” But this also is incorrect;

for we cannot say that transgressors follow the law of God when they

transgress; and Scripture declares that it is not only wicked men who

are transgressors, but also wicked demons and wicked angels.

Chapter LXIX.

And it is not we alone who speak of wicked demons, but almost all who

acknowledge the existence of demons. Thus, then, it is not true that all

observe the law of the Most High; for all who fall away from the divine

law, whether through heedlessness, or through depravity and vice, or

through ignorance of what is right, all such do not keep the law of God,

but, to use a new phrase which we find in Scripture, “the law of sin.” I

say, then, that in the opinion of most of those who believe in the

existence of demons, some of them are wicked; and these, instead of

keeping the law of God, offend against it. But, according to our belief,

it is true of all demons, that they were not demons originally, but they

became so in departing from the true way; so that the name “demons” is

given to those beings who have fallen away from God. Accordingly, those

who worship God must not serve demons. We may also learn the true nature

of demons if we consider the practice of those who call upon them by

charms to prevent certain things, or for many other purposes. For this

is the method they adopt, in order by means of incantations and magical

arts to invoke the demons, and induce them to further their wishes.

Wherefore the worship of all demons would be inconsistent in us who

worship the supreme God; and the service of demons is the service of

so-called gods, for “all the gods of the heathen are demons.”[1558] The

same thing also appears from the fact that the dedication of the most

famous of the so-called sacred places, whether temples or statues, was

accompanied by curious magical incantations, which were performed by

those who zealously served the demons with magical arts. Hence we are

determined to avoid the worship of demons even as we would avoid death;

and we hold that the worship, which is supposed among the Greeks to be

rendered to gods at the altars, and images, and temples, is in reality

offered to demons.

Footnote 1558:

Ps. xcvi. 5 (LXX.).

Chapter LXX.

His next remark was, “Have not these inferior powers had assigned to

them by God different departments, according as each was deemed worthy?”

But this is a question which requires a very profound knowledge. For we

must determine whether the Word of God, who governs all things, has

appointed wicked demons for certain employments, in the same way as in

states executioners are appointed, and other officers with cruel but

needful duties to discharge; or whether as among robbers, who infest

desert places, it is customary for them to choose out of their number

one who may be their leader,—so the demons, who are scattered as it were

in troops in different parts of the earth, have chosen for themselves a

chief under whose command they may plunder and pillage the souls of men.

To explain this fully, and to justify the conduct of the Christians in

refusing homage to any object except the Most High God, and the

First-born of all creation, who is His Word and God, we must quote this

from Scripture, “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers;

but the sheep did not hear them;” and again, “The thief cometh not but

for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy;”[1559] and other similar

passages, as, “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents

and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall by

any means hurt you;”[1560] and again, “Thou shalt tread upon the lion

and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under

feet.”[1561] But of these things Celsus knew nothing, or he would not

have made use of language like this: “Is not everything which happens in

the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons,

or of heroes, regulated by the law of the Most High God? Have these not

had assigned to them various departments of which they were severally

deemed worthy? Is it not just, therefore, that he who serves God should

serve those also to whom God has assigned such power?” To which he adds,

“It is impossible, they say, for a man to serve many masters.” This last

point we must postpone to the next book; for this, which is the seventh

book which we have written in answer to the treatise of Celsus, is

already of sufficient length.

Footnote 1559:

John x. 8-10.

Footnote 1560:

Luke x. 19.

Footnote 1561:

Ps. xci. 13.

BOOK VIII.

Chapter I.

Having completed seven books, I now propose to begin the eighth. And may

God and His only-begotten Son the Word be with us, to enable us

effectively to refute the falsehoods which Celsus has published under

the delusive title of _A True Discourse_, and at the same time to unfold

the truths of Christianity with such fulness as our purpose requires.

And as Paul said, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did

beseech you by us,”[1562] so would we in the same spirit and language

earnestly desire to be ambassadors for Christ to men, even as the Word

of God beseeches them to the love of Himself, seeking to win over to

righteousness, truth, and the other virtues, those who, until they

receive the doctrines of Jesus Christ, live in darkness about God and in

ignorance of their Creator. Again, then, I would say, may God bestow

upon us His pure and true Word, even “the Lord strong and mighty in

battle”[1563] against sin. We must now proceed to state the next

objection of Celsus, and afterwards to answer it.

Footnote 1562:

2 Cor. v. 20.

Footnote 1563:

Ps. xxiv. 8.

Chapter II.