IN the first book of our answer to the work of Celsus, who had boastfully entitled the treatise which he had composed against us A True Discourse, we have gone through, as you enjoined, my faithful Ambrosius, to the best of our ability, his preface, and the parts immediately following it, testing each one of his assertions as we went along, until we finished with the tirade (1) of this Jew of his, feigned. to have been delivered against Jesus. And in the second book we met, as we best could, all the charges contained in the invective (1) of the said Jew, which were levelled at us who are believers in God through Christ; and now we enter upon this third division of our discourse, in which our object is to refute the allegations which he makes in his own person.
He gives it as his opinion, that "the controversy between Jews and Christians
is a most foolish one," and asserts that "the discussions which we have
with each other regarding Christ differ in no respect from what is called
in the proverb, 'a fight about the shadow of an ass;' " (2) and thinks
that "there is nothing of importance (3) in the investigations of the Jews
and Christians: for both believe that it was predicted by the Divine Spirit
that one was to come as a Saviour to the human race, but do not yet agree
on the point whether the person predicted has actually come or not." For
we Christians, indeed, have believed in Jesus, as He who came according
to the predictions of the prophets. But the majority of the Jews are so
far from believing in Him, that those of them who lived at the time of
His coming conspired against Him; and those of the present day, approving
of what the Jews of former times dared to do against Him, speak evil of
Him, asserting that it was by means of sorcery (4) that he passed himself
off for Him who was predicted by the prophets as the One who was to come,
and who was called, agreeably to the traditions of the Jews, (5) the Christ.
CHAP. II.
But let Celsus, and those who assent to his charges, tell us whether
it is at all like "an ass's shadow," that the Jewish prophets should have
predicted the birth-place of Him who was to be the ruler of those who had
lived righteous lives, and who are called the "heritage" of God; (6) and
that Emmanuel should be conceived by a virgin; and that such signs and
wonders should be performed by Him who was the subject of prophecy; and
that His word should have such speedy course, that the voice of His apostles
should go forth into all the earth; and that He should undergo certain
sufferings after His condemnation by the Jews; and that He should rise
again from the dead. For was it by chance (7) that the prophets made these
announcements, with no persuasion of the truth in their minds, (8) moving
them not only to speak, but to deem their announcements worthy of being
committed to writing? And did so great a nation as that of the Jews, who
had long ago received a country of their own wherein to dwell, recognise
certain men as prophets, and reject others as utterers of false predictions,
without any conviction of the soundness of the distinction? (8) And was
there no motive which induced them to class with the books of Moses, which
were held as sacred, the words of those persons who were afterwards deemed
to be prophets? And can those who charge the Jews and Christians with folly,
show us how the Jewish nation could have continued to subsist, had there
existed among them no promise of the knowledge of future events? and how,
while each of the surrounding nations believed, agreeably to their ancient
institutions, that they received oracles and predictions from those whom
they accounted gods, this people alone, who were taught to view with contempt
all those who were considered gods by the heathen, as not being gods, but
demons, according to the declaration of the prophets, "For all the gods
of the nations are demons," (1) had among them no one who professed to
be a prophet, and who could restrain such as, from a desire to know the
future, were ready to desert I to the demons (1) of other nations? Judge,
then, whether it were not a necessity, that as the whole nation had been
taught to despise the deities of other lands, they should have had an abundance
of prophets, who made known events which were of far greater importance
in themselves, (3) and which surpassed the oracles of all other countries.
CHAP. Ill.
In the next place, miracles were performed in all countries, or at least
in many of them, as Celsus himself admits, instancing the case of AEsculapius,
who conferred benefits on many, and who foretold future events to entire
cities, which were dedicated to him, such as Tricca, and Epidaurus, and
Cos, and Pergamus; and along with AEsculapius he mentions Aristeas of Proconnesus,
and a certain Clazomenian, and Cleomedes of Astypalaea. But among the Jews
alone, who say they are dedicated to the God of all things, there was wrought
no miracle or sign which might help to confirm their faith in the Creator
of all things, and strengthen their hope of another and better life! But
how can they imagine such a state of things? For they would immediately
have gone over to the worship of those demons which gave oracles and performed
cures, and deserted the God who was believed, as far as words went, (4)
to assist them, but who never manifested to them His visible presence.
But if this result has not taken place, and if, on the contrary, they have
suffered countless calamities rather than renounce Judaism and their law,
and have been cruelly treated, at one time in Assyria, at another in Persia,
and at another under Antiochus, is it not in keeping with the probabilities
of the case s for those to suppose who do not yield their belief to their
miraculous histories and prophecies, that the events in question could
not be inventions, but that a certain divine Spirit being in the holy souls
of the prophets, as of men who underwent any labour for the cause of virtue,
did move them to prophesy some things relating to their contemporaries,
and others to their posterity, but chiefly regarding a certain personage
who was to come as a Saviour to the human race?
And if the above be the state of the case, how do Jews and Christians
search after "the shadow of an ass," in seeking to ascertain from those
prophecies which they believe in common, whether He who was foretold has
come, or has not yet arrived, and is still an object of expectation? But
even suppose (6) it be granted to Celsus that it was not Jesus who was
announced by the prophets, then, even on such a hypothesis, the investigation
of the sense of the prophetic writings is no search after "the shadow of
an ass," if He who was spoken of can be clearly pointed out, and it can
be shown both what sort of person He was predicted to be, and what He was
to do, and, if possible, when He was to arrive. But in the preceding pages
we have already spoken on the point of Jesus being the individual who was
foretold to be the Christ, quoting a few prophecies out of a larger number.
Neither Jews nor Christians, then, are wrong in assuming that the prophets
spoke under divine influence; (7) but they are in error who form erroneous
opinions respecting Him who was expected by the prophets to come, and whose
person and character were made known in their "true discourses."
CHAP. V.
Immediately after these points, Celsus, imagining that the Jews are
Egyptians by descent, and had abandoned Egypt, after revolting against
the Egyptian state, and despising the customs of that people in matters
of worship, says that "they suffered from the adherents of Jesus, who believed
in Him as the Christ, the same treatment which they had inflicted upon
the Egyptians; and that the cause which led to the new state of things
s in either instance was rebellion against the state." Now let us observe
what Celsus has here done. The ancient Egyptians, after inflicting many
cruelties upon the Hebrew race, who had settled in Egypt owing to a famine
which had broken out in Judea, suffered, in consequence of their injustice
to strangers and suppliants, that punishment which divine Providence had
decreed was to fall on the whole nation for having combined against an
entire people, who had been their guests, and who had done them no harm;
and after being smitten by plagues from God, they allowed them, with difficulty,
and after a brief period, to go wherever they liked, as being unjustly
detained in slavery. Because, then, they were a selfish people, who hon-outer
those who were in any degree related to them far more than they did strangers
of better lives, there is not an accusation which they have omitted to
bring against Moses and the Hebrews,--not altogether denying, indeed, the
miracles and wonders done by him, but alleging that they were wrought by
sorcery, and not by divine power. Moses, however, not as a magician, but
as a devout man, and one devoted to the God of all things, and a partaker
in the divine Spirit, both enacted laws for the Hebrews, according to the
suggestions of the Divinity, and recorded events as they happened with
perfect fidelity.
CHAP. VI.
Celsus, therefore, not investigating in a spirit of impartiality the
facts, which are related by the Egyptians in one way, and by the Hebrews
in another, but being bewitched, as it were,[1] in favour of the former,
accepted as true the statements of those who had oppressed the strangers,
and declared that the Hebrews, who had been unjustly treated, had departed
from Egypt after revolting against the Egyptians,--not observing how impossible
it was for so great a multitude of rebellious Egyptians to become a nation,
which, dating its origin from the said revolt, should change its language
at the time of its rebellion, so that those who up to that time made use
of the Egyptian tongue, should completely adopt, all at once, the language
of the Hebrews! Let it be granted, however, according to his supposition,
that on abandoning Egypt they did conceive a hatred also of their mother
tongue,[2] how did it happen that after so doing they did not rather adopt
the Syrian or Phoenician language, instead of preferring the Hebrew, which
is different from both? But reason seems to me to demonstrate that the
statement is false, which makes those who were Egyptians by race to have
revolted against Egyptians, and to have left the country, and to have proceeded
to Palestine, and occupied the land now called Judea. For Hebrew was the
language of their fathers before their descent into Egypt; and the Hebrew
letters, employed by Moses in writing those five books which are deemed
sacred by the Jews, were different from those of the Egyptians.
CHAP. VII.
In like manner, as the statement is false "that the Hebrews, being (originally)
Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their political existence) from the
time of their rebellion," so also is this, "that in the days of Jesus others
who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers;"
for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any
act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a
revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that
it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted
to take up arms in defence of the members of their families, and to slay
their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden
the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right
for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For
He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived
from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever.
Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have
adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when
it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their
persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into things, we may
say regarding the exodus from Egypt., that it is a miracle if a whole nation
at once adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had been a gift from
heaven, when one of their own prophets said, "As they went forth from Egypt,
they heard a language which they did not understand."[3]
CHAP. VIII.
In the following way, also, we may conclude that they who came out of
Egypt with Moses were not Egyptians; for if they had been Egyptians, their
names also would be Egyptian, because in every language the designations
(of persons and things) are kindred to the language.[4] But if it is certain,
from the names being Hebrew, that the people were not Egyptians,--and the
Scriptures are full of Hebrew names, and these bestowed, too, upon their
children while they were in Egypt,--it is clear that the Egyptian account
is false, which asserts that they were Egyptians, and went forth from Egypt
with Moses. Now it is absolutely certain[5] that, being descended, as the
Mosaic history records, from Hebrew ancestors, they employed a language
from which they also took the names which they conferred upon their children.
But with regard to the Christians, because they were taught not to avenge
themselves upon their enemies (and have thus observed laws of a mild and
philanthropic character); and because they would not, although able, have
made war even if they had received authority to do so,--they have obtained
this reward from God, that He
has always warred in their behalf, and on certain occasions has restrained
those who rose up against them and desired to destroy them. For in order
to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged in a struggle for their
religion, they also might be better fitted to despise death, some, on special
occasions, and these individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured
death for the sake of Christianity,--God not permitting the whole nation
to be exterminated, but desiring that it should continue, and that the
whole world should be filled with this salutary and religious doctrine.[1]
And again, on the other hand, that those who were of weaker minds might
recover their courage and rise superior to the thought of death, God interposed
His providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an act of His will
alone all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither kings,
nor rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond
a certain point. Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus,
"that a revolt was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish state,
and subsequently of Christianity."
CHAP. IX.
But since he is manifestly guilty of falsehood in the statements which
follow, let us examine his assertion when he says, "If all men wished to
become Christians, the latter would not desire such a result." Now that
the above statement is false is clear from this, that Christians do not
neglect, as far as in them lies, to take measures to disseminate their
doctrine throughout the whole world. Some of them, accordingly, have made
it their business to itinerate not only through cities, but even villages
and country houses,[2] that they might make converts to God. And no one
would maintain that they did this for the sake of gain, when sometimes
they would not accept even necessary sustenance; or if at any time they
were pressed by a necessity of this sort, were contented with the mere
supply of their wants, although many were willing to share (their abundance)
with them, and to bestow help upon them far above their need. At the present
day, indeed, when, owing to the multitude of Christian believers, not only
rich men, but persons of rank, and delicate and high-born ladies, receive
the teachers of Christianity, some perhaps will dare to say that it is
for the sake of a little glory s that certain individuals assume the office
of Christian instructors. It is impossible, however, rationally to entertain
such a suspicion with respect to Christianity in its beginnings, when the
danger incurred, especially by its teachers, was great; while at the present
day the discredit attaching to it among the rest of mankind is greater
than any supposed honour enjoyed among those who hold the same belief,
especially when such honour is not shared by all. It is false, then, from
the very nature of the case, to say that "if all men wished to become Christians,
the latter would not desire such a result."
CHAP. X.
But observe what he alleges as a proof of his statement: "Christians
at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they
grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing
to have his own individual party:[4] for this was their object from the
beginning." That Christians at first were few in number, in comparison
with the multitudes who subsequently became Christian, is undoubted; and
yet, all things considered, they were not so very few.[5] For what stirred
up the envy of the Jews against Jesus, and aroused them to conspire against
Him, was the great number of those who followed Him into the wilderness,--five
thousand men on one occasion, and four thousand on another, having attended
Him thither, without including the women and children. For such was the
charm[6] of Jesus' words, that not only were men willing to follow Him
to the wilderness, but women also, forgetting[7] the weakness of their
sex and a regard for outward propriety[8] in thus following their Teacher
into desert places. Children, too, who are altogether unaffected by such
emotions,[9] either following their parents, or perhaps attracted also
by His divinity, in order that it might be implanted within them, became
His followers along with their parents. But let it be granted that Christians
were few in number at the beginning, how does that help to prove that Christians
would be unwilling to make all men believe the doctrine of the Gospel?
CHAP. XI.
He says, in addition, that "all the Christians were of one mind," not
observing, even in this particular, that from the beginning there were
differences of opinion among believers regarding the meaning[10] of the
books held to be divine. At all events, while the apostles were still preaching,
and while eye-witnesses of (the works of) Jesus were still teaching His
doctrine, there was no small discussion among the converts from Judaism
regarding Gentile believers, on the point whether they ought to observe
Jewish customs, or should reject the burden of clean and unclean meats,
as not being obligatory on those who had abandoned their ancestral Gentile
customs, and had become believers in Jesus. Nay, even in the Epistles of
Paul, who was contemporary with those who had seen Jesus, certain particulars
are found mentioned as having been the subject of dispute,--viz., respecting
the resurrection,[1] and whether it were already past, and the day of the
Lord, whether it were nigh at hand[2] or not. Nay, the very exhortation
to "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely
so called: which some professing, have erred concerning the faith,"[3]
is enough to show that from the very beginning, when, as Celsus imagines,
believers were few in number, there were certain doctrines interpreted
in different ways.[4]
CHAP. XII.
In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies
in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying that
"when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and
split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party;"
and further, that "being thus separated through their numbers, they confute
one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they
still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed
to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the
various sects." In reply to which, we say that heresies of different kinds
have never originated from any matter in which the principle involved was
not important and beneficial to human life. For since the science of medicine
is useful and necessary to the human race, and many are the points of dispute
in it respecting the manner of curing bodies, there are found, for this
reason, numerous heresies confessedly prevailing in the science of medicine
among the Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous nations who
profess to employ medicine. And, again, since philosophy makes a profession
of the truth, and promises a knowledge of existing things with a view to
the regulation of life, and endeavours to teach what is advantageous to
our race, and since the investigation of these matters is attended with
great differences of opinion,[5] innumerable heresies have consequently
sprung up in philosophy, some of which are more celebrated than others.
Even Judaism itself afforded a pretext for the origination of heresies,
in the different acceptation accorded to the writings of Moses and those
of the prophets. So, then, seeing Christianity appeared an object of veneration
to men, not to the more servile class alone, as Celsus supposes, but to
many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary pursuits,[6] there necessarily
originated heresies,--not at all, however, as the result of faction and
strife, but through the earnest desire of many literary men to become acquainted
with the doctrines of Christianity. The consequence of which was, that,
taking in different acceptations those discourses which were believed by
all to be divine, there arose heresies, which received their names from
those individuals who admired, indeed, the origin of Christianity, but
who were led, in some way or other, by certain plausible reasons, to discordant
views. And yet no one would act rationally in avoiding medicine because
of its heresies; nor would he who aimed at that which is seemly[7] entertain
a hatred of philosophy, and adduce its many heresies as a pretext for his
antipathy. And so neither are the sacred books of Moses and the prophets
to be condemned on account of the heresies in Judaism.
CHAP. XIII.
Now, if these arguments hold good, why should we not defend, in the
same way, the existence of heresies in Christianity? And respecting these,
Paul appears to me to speak in a very striking manner when he says, "For
there must be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made
manifest among you."[8] For as that man is "approved" in medicine who,
on account of his experience in various (medical) heresies, and his honest
examination of the majority of them, has selected the preferable system,--and
as the great proficient in philosophy is he who, after acquainting himself
experimentally with the various views, has given in his adhesion to the
best,--so I would say that the wisest Christian was he who had carefully
studied the heresies both of Judaism and Christianity. Whereas he who finds
fault with Christianity because of its heresies would find fault also with
the teaching of Socrates, from whose school have issued many others of
discordant views. Nay, the opinions of Plato might be chargeable with error,
on account of Aristotle's having separated from his school, and founded
a new one,--on which subject we have remarked in the preceding book. But
it appears to me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain heresies
which do not possess even the name of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps
he had heard of the sects called Ophites and Cainites, or some others of
a similar nature, which had departed in all points from the teaching of
Jesus. And yet surely this furnishes no ground for a charge against the
Christian doctrine.
CHAP. XIV.
After this he continues: "Their union is the more wonderful, the more
it can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet rebellion
is a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which accrue from it,
and the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes which give stability
to their faith." To this we answer, that our union does thus rest upon
a reason, or rather not upon a reason, but upon the divine working,[1]
so that its commencement was God's teaching men, in the prophetical writings,
to expect the advent of Christ, who was to be the Saviour of mankind. For
in so far as this point is not really refuted (although it may seem to
be by unbelievers), in the same proportion is the doctrine commended as
the doctrine of God, and Jesus shown to be the Son of God both before and
after His incarnation. I maintain, moreover, that even after His incarnation,
He is always found by those who possess the acutest spiritual vision to
be most God-like, and to have really come down to us from God, and to have
derived His origin or subsequent development not from human wisdom, but
from the manifestation[2] of God within Him, who by His manifold wisdom
and miracles established Judaism first, and Christianity afterwards; and
the assertion that rebellion, and the advantages attending it, were the
originating causes of a doctrine which has converted and improved so many
men was effectually refuted.
CHAP. XV.
But again, that it is not the fear of external enemies which strengthens
our union, is plain from the fact that this cause, by God's will, has already,
for a considerable time, ceased to exist. And it is probable that the secure
existence, so far as regards the world, enjoyed by believers at present,
will come to an end, since those who calumniate Christianity in every way
are again attributing the present frequency of rebellion to the multitude
of believers, and to their not being persecuted by the authorities as in
old times. For we have learned from the Gospel neither to relax our efforts
in days of peace, and to give ourselves up to repose, nor, when the world
makes war upon us, to become cowards, and apostatize from the love of the
God of all things which is in Jesus Christ. And we clearly manifest the
illustrious nature of our origin, and do not (as Celsus imagines) conceal
it, when we impress upon the minds of our first converts a contempt for
idols, and images of all kinds, and, besides this, raise their thoughts
from the worship of created things instead of God, and elevate them to
the universal Creator; dearly showing Him to be the subject of prophecy,
both from the predictions regarding Him--of which there are many--and from
those traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are
able intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the
apostles.
CHAP. XVI.
"But what the legends are of every kind which we gather together, or
the terrors which we invent," as Celsus without proof asserts, he who likes
may show. I know not, indeed, what he means by "inventing terrors," unless
it be our doctrine of God as Judge, and of the condemnation of men for
their deeds, with the various proofs derived partly from Scripture, partly
from probable reason. And yet--for truth is precious--Celsus says, at the
close, "Forbid that either I, or these, or any other individual should
ever reject the doctrine respecting the future punishment of the wicked
and the reward of the good!" What terrors, then, if you except the doctrine
of punishment, do we invent and impose upon mankind? And if he should reply
that "we weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources,
and trumpet them aloud, and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele
clash their cymbals in the ears of those who are being initiated in their
mysteries; "[3] we shall ask him in reply, "Erroneous opinions from what
ancient sources?" For, whether he refers to Grecian accounts, which taught
the existence of courts of justice under the earth, or Jewish, which, among
other things, predicted the life that follows the present one; he will
be unable to show that we who, striving to believe on grounds of reason,
regulate our lives in conformity with such doctrines, have failed correctly
to ascertain the truth.[4]
CHAP. XVII.
He wishes, indeed, to compare the articles of our faith to those of
the Egyptians; " among whom, as you approach their sacred edifices, are
to be seen splendid enclosures, and groves, and
large and beautiful gateways,[1] and wonderful temples, and magnificent
tents around them, and ceremonies of worship full of superstition and mystery;
but when you have entered, and passed within, the object of worship is
seen to be a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog!" Now,
what is the resemblance[2] between us and the splendours of Egyptian worship
which are seen by those who draw near their temples? And where is the resemblance
to those irrational animals which are worshipped within, after you pass
through the splendid gateways? Are our prophecies, and the God of all things,
and the injunctions against images,[3] objects of reverence in the view
of Celsus also, and Jesus Christ crucified, the analogue to the worship
of the irrational animal? But if he should assert this--and I do not think
that he will maintain anything else--we shall reply that we have spoken
in the preceding pages at greater length in defence of those charges affecting
Jesus, showing that what appeared to have happened to Him in the capacity
of His human nature, was fraught with benefit to all men, and with salvation
to the whole world.
CHAP. XVIII.
In the next place, referring to the statements of the Egyptians, who
talk loftily about irrational animals, and who assert that they are a sort
of symbols of God, or anything else which their prophets, so termed, are
accustomed to call them, Celsus says that "an impression is produced in
the minds of those who have learned these things; that they have not been
initiated in vain; "[4] while with regard to the truths which are taught
in our writings to those who have made progress in the study of Christianity
(through that which is called by Paul the gift consisting in the "word
of wisdom" through the Spirit, and in the "word of knowledge" according
to the Spirit), Celsus does not seem even to have formed an idea,[5] judging
not only from what he has already said, but from what he subsequently adds
in his attack upon the Christian system, when he asserts that Christians
"repel every wise man from the doctrine of their faith, and invite only
the ignorant and the vulgar;" on which assertions we shall remark in due
time, when we come to the proper place.
CHAP. XIX.
He says, indeed, that "we ridicule the Egyptians, although they present
many by no means contemptible mysteries[6] for our consideration, when
they teach us that such rites are acts of worship offered to eternal ideas,
and not, as the multitude think, to ephemeral animals; and that we are
silly, because we introduce nothing nobler than the goats and dogs of the
Egyptian worship in our narratives about Jesus." Now to this we reply,
"Good sir,[7] (suppose that) you are right in eulogizing the fact that
the Egyptians present to view many by no means contemptible mysteries,
and obscure explanations about the animals (worshipped) among them, you
nevertheless do not act consistently in accusing us as if you believed
that we had nothing to state which was worthy of consideration, but that
all our doctrines were contemptible and of no account, seeing we unfold
s the narratives concerning Jesus according to the ' wisdom of the word'
to those who are 'perfect' in Christianity. Regarding whom, as being competent
to understand the wisdom that is in Christianity, Paul says: 'We speak
wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor
of the princes of this world, who come to nought, but we speak the wisdom
of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before
the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew.'"[9]
CHAP. XX.
And we say to those who hold similar opinions to those of Celsus: "Paul
then, we are to suppose, had before his mind the idea of no pre-eminent
wisdom when he professed to speak wisdom among them that are perfect?"
Now, as he spoke with his customary boldness when in making such a profession
he said that he was possessed of no wisdom, we shall say in reply: first
of all examine the Epistles of him who utters these words, and look carefully
at the meaning of each expression in them--say, in those to the Ephesians,
and Colossians, and Thessalonians, and Philippians, and Romans,--and show
two things, both that you understand Paul's words, and that you can demonstrate
any of them to be silly or foolish. For if any one give himself to their
attentive perusal, I am well assured either that he will be amazed at the
understanding of the man who can clothe great ideas in common language;
or if he be not amazed, he will only exhibit himself in a ridiculous light,
whether he simply state the meaning of the writer as if he had comprehended
it, or try to controvert and confute what he only imagined that he understood!
CHAP. XI.
And I have not yet spoken of the observance[1] of all that is written
in the Gospels, each one of which contains much doctrine difficult to be
understood, not merely by the multitude, but even by certain of the more
intelligent, including a very profound explanation of the parables which
Jesus delivered to "those without," while reserving the exhibition of their
full meaning, for those who had passed beyond the stage of exoteric teaching,
and who came to Him privately in the house. And when he comes to understand
it, he will admire the reason why some are said to be "without," and others
"in the house." And again, who would not be filled with astonishment that
is able to comprehend the movements[3] of Jesus; ascending at one time
a mountain for the purpose of delivering certain discourses, or of performing
certain miracles, or for His own transfiguration, and descending again
to heal the sick and those who were unable to follow Him whither His disciples
went? But it is not the appropriate time to describe at present the truly
venerable and divine contents of the Gospels, or the mind of Christ--that
is, the wisdom and the word--contained in the writings of Paul. But what
we have said is sufficient by way of answer to the unphilosophic sneers[4]
of Celsus, in Comparing the inner mysteries of the Church of God to the
cats, and apes, and crocodiles, and goats, and dogs of Egypt.
CHAP. XXII.
But this low jester[5] Celsus, omitting no species of mockery and ridicule
which can be employed against us, mentions in his treatise the Dioscuri,
and Hercules, and AEsculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed by the Greeks
to have become gods after being men, and says that "we cannot bear to call
such beings gods, because they were at first men,[6] and yet they manifested
many noble qualifies, which were displayed for the benefit of mankind,
while we assert that Jesus was seen after His death by His own followers;"
and he brings against us an additional charge, as if we said that "He was
seen indeed, but was only a shadow!" Now to this we reply, that it was
very artful of Celsus not here clearly to indicate that he did not regard
these beings as gods, for he was afraid of the opinion of those who might
peruse his treatise, and who might suppose him to be an atheist; whereas,
if he had paid respect to what appeared to him to be the truth, he would
not have feigner to regard them as gods.[7] Now to either of the allegations
we are ready with an answer. Let us, accordingly, to those who do not regard
them as gods reply as follows: These beings, then, are not gods at all;
but agreeably to the view of those who think that the soul of man perishes
immediately (after death), the souls of these men also perished; or according
to the opinion of those who say that the soul continues to subsist or is
immortal, these men continue to exist or are immortal, and they are not
gods but heroes,--or not even heroes, but simply souls. If, then, on the
one hand, you suppose them not to exist, we shall have to prove the doctrine
of the soul's immortality, which is to us a doctrine of pre-eminent importance;[8]
if, on the other hand, they do exist, we have still to prove[9] the doctrine
of immortality, not only by what the Greeks have so well said regarding
it, but also in a manner agreeable to the teaching of Holy Scripture. And
we shall demonstrate that it is impossible for those who were polytheists
during their lives to obtain a better country and position after their
departure from this world, by quoting the histories that are related of
them, in which is recorded the great dissoluteness of Hercules, and his
effeminate bondage with Omphale, together with the statements regarding
AEsculapius, that their Zeus struck him dead by a thunderbolt. And of the
Dioscuri, it will be said that they die often--
"At one time live on alternate days, and at another
Die, and obtain honour equally with the gods."[10]
How, then, can they reasonably imagine that one of these is to be regarded
as a god or a hero?
CHAP. XXIII.
But we, in proving the facts related of our Jesus from the prophetic
Scriptures, and comparing afterwards His history with them, demonstrate
that no dissoluteness on His part is recorded. For even they who conspired
against Him, and who sought false witnesses to aid them, did not find even
any plausible grounds for advancing a false charge against Him, so as to
accuse Him of licentiousness; but His death was indeed the result of a
conspiracy, and bore no resemblance to the death of AEsculapius by lightning.
And what is there that is venerable in the madman Dionysus, and his female
garments, that he should be worshipped as a god? And if they who would
defend such beings betake themselves to allegorical interpretations, we
must examine each individual instance, and ascertain whether it is well
founded,[1] and also in each particular case, whether those beings can
have a real existence, and are deserving of respect and worship who were
torn by the Titans, and cast down from their heavenly throne. Whereas our
Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop[2]--for I will take
the word that Celsus employs--did really appear, and Celsus makes a false
accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow.
And let the statements of their histories and that of Jesus be carefully
compared together. Will Celsus have the former to be true, but the latter,
although recorded by eye-witnesses who showed by their acts that they clearly
understood the nature of what they had seen, and who manifested their state
of mind by what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of His Gospel, to
be inventions? Now, who is there that, desiring to act always in conformity
with right reason, would yield his assent at random[3] to what is related
of the one, but would rush to the history of Jesus, and without examination
refuse to believe what is recorded of Him?[4]
CHAP. XXIV.
And again, when it is said of AEsculapius that a great multitude both
of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen, and
still see, no mere phantom, but AEsculapius himself, healing and doing
good, and foretelling the future; Celsus requires us to believe this, and
finds no fault with the believers in Jesus, when we express our belief
in such stories, but when we give our assent to the disciples, and eye-wit-nesses
of the miracles of Jesus, who clearly manifest the honesty of their convictions
(because we see their guilelessness, as far as it is possible to see the
conscience revealed in writing), we are called by him a set of "silly"
individuals, although he cannot demonstrate that an incalculable[5] number,
as he asserts, of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge the existence of AEsculapius;
while we, if we deem this a matter of importance, can clearly show a countless
multitude of Greeks and Barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus.
And some give evidence of their having received through this faith a marvellous
power by the cures which they perform, revoking no other name over those
who need their help than that of the God of all things, and of Jesus, along
with a mention of His history. For by these means we too have seen many
persons freed from grievous calamities, and from distractions of mind,[6]
and madness, and countless other ills, which could be cured neither by
men nor devils.
CHAP. XXV.
Now, in order to grant that there did exist a healing spirit named AEsculapius,
who used to cure the bodies of men, I would say to those who are astonished
at such an occurrence, or at the prophetic knowledge of Apollo, that since
the cure of bodies is a thing indifferent,[7] and a matter within the reach
not merely of the good,[8] but also of the bad; and as the foreknowledge
of the future is also a thing indifferent--for the possessor of foreknowledge
does not necessarily manifest the possession of virtue--you must show that
they who practise healing or who forefell the future are in no respect
wicked, but exhibit a perfect pattern of virtue, and are not far from being
regarded as gods. But they will not be able to show that they are virtuous
who practise the art of healing, or who are gifted with foreknowledge,
seeing many who are not fit to live are related to have been healed; and
these, too, persons whom, as leading improper lives, no wise physician
would wish to heal. And in the responses of the Pythian oracle also you
may find some injunctions which are not in accordance with reason, two
of which we will adduce on the present occasion; viz., when it gave commandment
that Cleomedes[9]--the boxer, I suppose--should be honoured with divine
honours, seeing some great importance or other attaching to his pugilistic
skill, but did not confer either upon Pythagoras or upon Socrates the honours
which it awarded to pugilism; and also when it called Archilochus "the
servant of the Muses"--a man who employed his poetic powers upon topics
of the most wicked and licentious nature, and whose public character was
dissolute and impure--and entitled him "pious,"[10] in respect of his being
the servant of the Muses, who are deemed to be goddesses! Now I am inclined
to think that no one would assert that he was a "pious" man who was not
adorned with all moderation and virtue, or that a decorous[11] man would
utter such expressions as are contained in the unseemly[12] iambics of
Archilochus. And if nothing that is divine in itself is shown to belong
either to the healing skill of AEsculapius or the prophetic power of Apollo,
how could any one, even were I to grant that the facts are as alleged,
reasonably worship them as pure divinities?--and especially when the prophetic
spirit of Apollo, pure from any body of earth, secretly enters through
the private parts the person of her who is called the priestess, as she
is seated at the mouth of the Pythian cave![1] Whereas regarding Jesus
and His power we have no such notion; for the body which was born of the
Virgin was composed of human material, and capable of receiving human wounds
and death.
CHAP. XXVI.
Let us see what Celsus says next, when he adduces from history marvellous
occurrences, which in themselves seem to be incredible, but which are not
discredited by him, so far at least as appears from his words. And, in
the first place, regarding Aristeas of Proconnesus, of whom he speaks as
follows: "Then, with respect to Aristeas of Proconnesus, who disappeared
from among men in a manner so indicative of divine intervention,[2] and
who showed himself again in so unmistakeable a fashion, and on many subsequent
occasions visited many parts of the world, and announced marvellous events,
and whom Apollo enjoined the inhabitants of Metapontium to regard as a
god, no one considers him to be a god." This account he appears to have
taken from Pindar and Herodotus. It will be sufficient, however, at present
to quote the statement of the latter writer from the fourth book of his
histories, which is to the following effect: "Of what country Aristeas,
who made these verses, was, has already been mentioned, and I shall now
relate the account I heard of him in Proconnesus and Cyzicus. They say
that Aristeas, who was inferior to none of the citizens by birth, entering
into a fuller's shop in Proconnesus, died suddenly, and that the fuller,
having closed his workshop, went to acquaint the relatives of the deceased.
When the report had spread through the city that Aristeas was dead, a certain
Cyzi-cenian, arriving from Artace, fell into a dispute with those who made
the report, affirming that he had met and conversed with him on his way
to Cyzicus, and he vehemently disputed the truth of the report; but the
relations of the deceased went to the fuller's shop, taking with them what
was necessary for the purpose of carrying the body away; but when the house
was opened, Aristeas was not to be seen, either dead or alive. They say
that afterwards, in the seventh year, he appeared in Proconnesus, composed
those verses which by the Greeks are now called Arimaspian, and having
composed them, disappeared a second time. Such is the story current in
these cities. But these things I know happened to the Metapontines in Italy
340 years after the second disappearance of Aristeas, as I discovered by
computation in Proconnesus and Metapontium. The Metapontines say that Aristeas
himself, having appeared in their country, exhorted them to erect an altar
to Apollo, and to place near it a statue beating the name of Aristeas the
Proconnesian; for he said that Apollo had visited their country only of
all the Italians, and that he himself, who was now Aristeas, accompanied
him; and that when he accompanied the god he was a crow; and after saying
this he vanished. And the Metapontines say they sent to Delphi to inquire
of the god what the apparition of the man meant; but the Pythian bade them
obey the apparition, and if they obeyed it would conduce to their benefit.
They accordingly, having received this answer, fulfilled the injunctions.
And now, a statue beating the name of Aristeas is placed near the image
of Apollo, and around it laurels are planted: the image is placed in the
public square. Thus much concerning Aristeas."[3]
CHAP. XXVII.
Now, in answer to this account of Aristeas, we have to say, that if
Celsus had adduced it as history, without signifying his own assent to
its truth, it is in a different way that we should have met his argument.
But since he asserts that he "disappeared through the intervention of the
divinity," and "showed himself again in an unmistakeable manner," and "visited
many parts of the world," and "made marvellous announcements;" and, moreover,
that there was "an oracle of Apollo, enjoining the Metapontines to treat
Aristeas as a god," he gives the accounts relating to him as upon his own
authority, and with his full assent. And (this being the case), we ask,
How is it possible that, while supposing the marvels related by the disciples
of Jesus regarding their Master to be wholly fictitious, and finding fault
with those who believe them, you, O Celsus, do not regard these stories
of yours to be either products of jugglery[4] or inventions? And how,[5]
while charging others with an irrational belief in the marvels recorded
of Jesus, can you show yourself justified in giving credence to such statement
as the above, without producing some proof or evidence of the alleged occurrences
having taken place? Or do Herodotus and Pindar appear to you to speak the
truth, while they who have made it their concern to die for the doctrine
of Jesus, and who have left to their successors writings so remarkable
on the truths which they believed, entered for the sake of "fictions" (as
you consider them), and "myths," and "juggleries," upon a struggle which
entails a life of danger and a death of violence? Place yourself, then,
as a neutral party, between what is related of Aristeas and what is recorded
of Jesus, and see whether, from the result, and from the benefits which
have accrued from the reformation of morals, and to the worship of the
God who is over all things, it is not allowable to conclude that we must
believe the events recorded of Jesus not to have happened without the divine
intervention, but that this was not the case with the story of Aristeas
the Proconnesian.
CHAP. XXVIII.
For with what purpose in view did Providence accomplish the marvels
related of Aristeas? And to confer what benefit upon the human race did
such remarkable events, as you regard them, take place? You cannot answer.
But we, when we relate the events of the history of Jesus, have no ordinary
defence to offer for their occurrence;--this, viz., that God desired to
commend the doctrine of Jesus as a doctrine which was to save mankind,
and which was based, indeed, upon the apostles as foundations of the rising(1)
edifice of Christianity, but which increased in magnitude also in the succeeding
ages, in which not a few cures are wrought in the name of Jesus, and certain
other manifestations of no small moment have taken place. Now what sort
of person is Apollo, who enjoined the Metapon-tines to treat Aristeas as
a god? And with what object does he do this? And what advantage was he
procuring to the Metapontines from this divine worship, if they were to
regard him as a god, who a little ago was a mortal? And yet the recommendations
of Apollo (viewed by us as a demon who has obtained the honour of libation
and sacrificial odours(2)) regarding this Aristeas appear to you to be
worthy of consideration; while those of the God of all things, and of His
holy angels, made known beforehand through the prophets--not after the
birth of Jesus, but before He appeared among men--do not stir you up to
admiration, not merely of the prophets who received the Divine Spirit,
but of Him also who was the object of their predictions, whose entrance
into life was so clearly predicted many years beforehand by numerous prophets,
that the whole Jewish people who were hanging in expectation of the coming
of Him who was looked for, did, after the advent of Jesus, fall into a
keen dispute with each other; and that a great multitude of them acknowledged
Christ, and believed Him to be the object of prophecy, while others did
not believe in Him, but, despising the meekness of those who, on account
of the teaching of Jesus, were unwilling to cause even the most trifling
sedition, dared to inflict on Jesus those cruelties which His disciples
have so truthfully and candidly recorded, without secretly omitting from
their marvellous history of Him what seems to the multitude to bring disgrace
upon the doctrine of Christianity. But both Jesus Himself and His disciples
desired that His followers should believe not merely in His Godhead and
miracles, as if He had not also been a partaker of human nature, and had
assumed the human flesh which "lusteth against the Spirit;"(3) but they
saw also that the power which had descended into human nature, and into
the midst of human miseries, and which had assumed a human soul and body,
contributed through faith, along with its divine elements, to the salvation
of believers,(4) when they see that from Him there began the union of the
divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with
the divine, might rise to be divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those
who not only believe, but s enter upon the life which Jesus taught, and
which elevates to friendship with God and communion with Him every one
who lives according to the precepts of Jesus.
CHAP. XXIX.
According to Celsus, then, Apollo wished the Metapontines to treat Aristeas
as a god. But as the Metapontines considered the evidence in favour of
Aristeas being a man--and probably not a virtuous one--to be stronger than
the declaration of the oracle to the effect that he was a god or worthy
of divine honours, they for that reason would not obey Apollo, and consequently
no one regarded Aristeas as a god. But with respect to Jesus we would say
that, as it was of advantage to the human race to accept him as the Son
of God--God come in a human soul and body--and as this did not seem to
be advantageous to the gluttonous appetites(6) of the demons which love
bodies, and to those who deem them to be gods on that account, the demons
that are on earth (which are supposed to be gods by those who are not instructed
in the nature of demons), and also their worshippers, were desirous to
prevent the spread of the doctrine of Jesus; for they saw that the libations
and odours in which they greedily delighted were being swept away by the
prevalence of the instructions of Jesus. But the God who sent Jesus dissipated
all the conspiracies of the demons, and made the Gospel of Jesus to prevail
throughout the whole world for the conversion and reformation of men, and
caused Churches to be everywhere established in opposition to those of
superstitious and licentious and wicked men; for such is the character
of the multitudes who constitute the citizens(1) in the assemblies of the
various cities. Whereas the Churches of God which are instructed by Christ,
when carefully contrasted with the assemblies of the districts in which
they are situated, are as beacons(2) in the world; for who would not admit
that even the inferior members of the Church, and those who in comparison
with the better are less worthy, are nevertheless more excellent than many
of those who belong to the assemblies in the different districts?
CHAP. XXX.
For the Church(3) of God, e.g., which is at Athens, is a meek and stable
body, as being one which desires to please God, who is over all things;
whereas the assembly(4) of the Athenians is given to sedition, and is not
at all to be compared to the Church of God in that city. And you may say
the same thing of the Church of God at Corinth, and of the assembly of
the Corinthian people; and also of the Church of God at Alexandria, and
of the assembly of the people of Alexandria. And if he who hears this be
a candid man, and one who investigates things with a desire to ascertain
the truth, he will be filled with admiration of Him who not only conceived
the design, but also was able to secure in all places the establishment
of Churches of God alongside s of the assemblies of the people in each
city. In like manner, also, in comparing the council(6) of the Church of
God with the council in any city, you would find that certain councillors(7)
of the Church are worthy to rule in the city of God, if there be any such
city in the whole world;(8) whereas the councillors in all other places
exhibit in their characters no quality worthy of the conventional(9) superiority
which they appear to enjoy over their fellow-citizens. And so, too, you
must compare the ruler of the Church in each city with the ruler of the
people of the city, in order to observe that even amongst those councillors
and rulers of the Church of God who come very far short of their duty,
and who lead more indolent lives than others who are more energetic, it
is nevertheless possible to discover a general superiority in what relates
to the progress of virtue over the characters of the councillors and rulers
in the various cities.(10)
CHAP. XXXI.
Now if these things be so, why should it not be consistent with reason
to hold with regard to Jesus, who was able to effect results so great,
that there dwelt in Him no ordinary divinity? while this was not the case
either with the Proconnesian Aristeas (although Apollo would have him regarded
as a god), or with the other individuals enumerated by Celsus when he says,
"No one regards Abaris the Hyperborean as a god, who was possessed of such
power as to be borne along like an arrow from a bow."(11) For with what
object did the deity who bestowed upon this Hyperborean Abaris the power
of being carried along like an arrow, confer upon him such a gift? Was
it that the human race might be benefited thereby,(12) or did he himself
obtain any advantage from the possession of such a power?--always supposing
it to be conceded that these statements are not wholly inventions, but
that the thing actually happened through the co-operation of some demon.
But if it be recorded that my Jesus was received up into glory,(13) I perceive
the divine arrangement(14) in such an act, viz., because God, who brought
this to pass, commends in this way the Teacher to those who witnessed it,
in order that as men who are contending not for human doctrine, but for
divine teaching, they may devote themselves as far as possible to the God
who is over all, and may do all things in order to please Him, as those
who are to receive in the divine judgment the reward of the good or evil
which they have wrought in this life.
CHAP. XXXII.
But as Celsus next mentions the case of the Clazomeni
" " ™ ¡
¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª «
¬ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶
· ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿
À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È
É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ
Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú
Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã
ä å ç ýÿÿÿè é ê
ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó
ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü
ý þ ÿ . an, subjoining to the story about him this remark,
"Do they not report that his soul frequently quitted his body, and flitted
about in an incorporeal form? and yet men did not regard him as a god,"
we have to answer that probably certain wicked demons contrived that such
statements should be committed to writing (for I do not believe that they
contrived that such a thing should actually take place), in order that
the predictions regarding Jesus, and the discourses uttered by Him, might
either be evil spoken of, as inventions like these, or might excite no
surprise, as not being more remarkable than other occurrences. But my Jesus
said regarding His own soul (which was separated from the body, not by
virtue of any human necessity, but by the miraculous power which was given
Him also for this purpose): "No one taketh my life from Me, but I lay it
down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again."(1) For as He had power to lay it down, He laid it down when He
said, "Father, why hast Thou forsaken Me? And when He had cried with a
loud voice, He gave up the ghost,"(2) anticipating the public executioners
of the crucified, who break the legs of the victims, and who do so in order
that their punishment may not be further prolonged. And He "took His life,"
when He manifested Himself to His disciples, having in their presence foretold
to the unbelieving Jews, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up again,"(3) and "He spake this of the temple of His body;" the
prophets, moreover, having predicted such a result in many other passages
of their writings, and in this, "My flesh also shall rest in hope: for
Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy
One to see corruption."(4)
CHAP. XXXIII.
Celsus, however, shows that he has read a good many Grecian histories,
when he quotes further what is told of Cleomedes of Astypalaea, "who,"
he relates, "entered into an ark, and although shut up within it, was not
found therein, but through some arrangement of the divinity, flew out,
when certain persons had cut open the ark in order to apprehend him." Now
this story, if an invention, as it appears to be, cannot be compared with
what is related of Jesus, since in the lives of such men there is found
no indication of their possessing the divinity which is ascribed to them;
whereas the divinity of Jesus is established both by the existence of the
Churches of the saved,(5) and by the prophecies uttered concerning Him,
and by the cures wrought in His name, and by the wisdom and knowledge which
are in Him, and the deeper truths which are discovered by those who know
how to ascend from a simple faith, and to investigate the meaning which
lies in the divine Scriptures, agreeably to the injunctions of Jesus, who
said, "Search the Scriptures,"(6) and to the wish of Paul, who taught that
"we ought to know how to answer every man;"(7) nay, also of him who said,
"Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh of you a reason
of the faiths that is in you."(9) If he wishes to have it conceded, however,
that it is not a fiction, let him show with what object this supernatural
power made him, through some arrangement of the divinity, flee from the
ark. For if he will adduce any reason worthy of consideration, and point
out any purpose worthy of God in conferring such a power on Cleomedes,
we will decide on the answer which we ought to give; but if he fail to
say anything convincing on the point, clearly because no reason can be
discovered, then we shall either speak slightingly of the story to those
who have not accepted it, and charge it with being false, or we shall say
that some demoniac power, casting a glamour over the eyes, produced, in
the case of the Astypalaean, a result like that which is produced by the
performers of juggling tricks,(10) while Celsus thinks that with respect
to him he has spoken like an oracle, when he said that "by some divine
arrangement he flew away from the ark."
CHAP. XXXIV.
I am, however, of opinion that these individuals are the only instances
with which Celsus was acquainted. And yet, that he might appear voluntarily
to pass by other similar cases, he says, "And one might name many others
of the same kind." Let it be granted, then, that many such persons have
existed who conferred no benefit upon the human race: what would each one
of their acts be found to amount to in comparison with the work of Jesus,
and the miracles related of Him, of which we have already spoken at considerable
length? He next imagines that, "in worshipping him who," as he says, "was
taken prisoner and put to death, we are acting like the Getae who worship
Zamolxis, and the Cilicians who worship Mopsus, and the Acarnanians who
pay divine honours to Amphilochus, and like the Thebans who do the same
to Amphiaraus, and the Lebadians to Trophonius." Now in these instances
we shall prove that he has compared us to the foregoing without good grounds.
For these different tribes erected temples and statues to those individuals
above enumerated, whereas we have refrained from offering to the Divinity
honour by any such means (seeing they are adapted rather to demons, which
are somehow fixed in a certain place which they prefer to any other, or
which take up their dwelling, as it were, after being removed (from one
place to another) by certain rites and incantations), and are lost in reverential
wonder at Jesus, who has recalled our minds from all sensible things, as
being not only corruptible, but destined to corruption, and elevated them
to honour the God who is over all with prayers and a righteous life, which
we offer to Him as being intermediate between the nature of the uncreated
and that of all created things,(1) and who bestows upon us the benefits
which come from the Father, and who as High Priest conveys our prayers
to the supreme God.
CHAP. XXXV.
But I should like, in answer to him who for some unknown reason advances
such statements as the above, to make in a conversational way(2) some such
remarks as the following, which seem not inappropriate to him. Are then
those persons whom you have mentioned nonentities, and is there no power
in Lebadea connected with Trophonius, nor in Thebes with the temple of
Amphiaraus, nor in Acarnania with Amphilochus, nor in Cilicia with Mopsus?
Or is there in such persons some being, either a demon, or a hero, or even
a god, working works which are beyond the reach of man? For if he answer
that there is nothing either demoniacal or divine about these individuals
more than others, then let him at once make known his own opinion, as being
that of an Epicurean, and of one who does not hold the same views with
the Greeks, and who neither recognises demons nor worships gods as do the
Greeks; and let it be shown that it was to no purpose that he adduced the
instances previously enumerated (as if he believed them to be true), together
with those which he adds in the following pages. But if he will assert
that the persons spoken of are either demons, or heroes, or even gods,
let him notice that he will establish by what he has admitted a result
which he does not desire, viz., that Jesus also was some such being; for
which reason, too, he was able to demonstrate to not a few that He had
come down from God to visit the human race. And if he once admit this,
see whether he will not be forced to confess that He is mightier than those
individuals with whom he classed Him, seeing none of the latter forbids
the offering of honour to the others; while He, having confidence in Himself,
because He is more powerful than all those others, forbids them to be received
as divine(3) because they are wicked demons, who have taken possession
of places on earth, through inability to rise to the purer and diviner
region, whither the grossnesses of earth and its countless evils cannot
reach.
CHAP. XXXVI.
But as he next introduces the case of the favourite of Adrian (I refer
to the accounts regarding the youth Antinous, and the honours paid him
by the inhabitants of the city of Antinous in Egypt), and imagines that
the honour paid to him falls little short of that which we render to Jesus,
let us show in what a spirit of hostility this statement is made. For what
is there in common between a life lived among the favourites of Adrian,
by one who did not abstain even from unnatural lusts, and that of the venerable
Jesus, against whom even they who brought countless other charges, and
who told so many falsehoods, were not able to allege that He manifested,
even in the slightest degree, any tendency to what was licentious?(4) Nay,
further, if one were to investigate, in a spirit of truth and impartiality,
the stories relating to Antinous, he would find that it was due to the
magical arts and rites of the Egyptians that there was even the appearance
of his performing anything (marvellous) in the city which bears his name,
and that too only after his decease,--an effect which is said to have been
produced in other temples by the Egyptians, and those who are skilled in
the arts which they practise. For they set up in certain places demons
claiming prophetic or healing power, and which frequently torture those
who seem to have committed any mistake about ordinary kinds of food, or
about touching the dead body of a man, that they may have the appearance
of alarming the uneducated multitude. Of this nature is the being that
is considered to be a god in Antinoopolis in Egypt, whose (reputed) virtues
are the lying inventions of some who live by the gain derived therefrom;(5)
while others, deceived by the demon placed there, and others again convicted
by a weak conscience, actually think that they are paying a divine penalty
inflicted by Antinous. Of such a nature also are the mysteries which they
perform, and the seeming predictions which they utter. Far different from
such are those of Jesus. For it was no company of sorcerers, paying court
to a king or ruler at his bidding, who seemed to have made him a god; but
the Architect of the universe Himself, in keeping with the marvellously
persuasive power of His words,(6) commended Him as worthy of honour, not
only to those men who were well disposed, but to demons also, and other
unseen powers,
479
which even at the present time show that they either fear the name of
Jesus as that of a being of superior power, or reverentially accept Him
as their legal ruler.[1] For if the commendation had not been given Him
by God, the demons would not have withdrawn from those whom they had assailed,
in obedience to the mere mention of His name.
CHAP. XXXVII.
The Egyptians, then, having been taught to worship Antinous, will, if
you compare him with Apollo or Zeus, endure such a comparison, Antinous
being magnified in their estimation through being classed with these deities;
for Celsus is clearly convicted of falsehood when he says, "that they will
not endure his being compared with Apollo or Zeus." Whereas Christians
(who have learned that their eternal life consists in knowing the only
true God, who is over all, and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent; and who
have learned also that all the gods of the heathen are greedy demons, which
flit around sacrifices and blood, and other sacrificial accompaniments,[2]
in order to deceive those who have not taken refuge with the God who is
over all, but that the divine and holy angels of God are of a different
nature and will[3] from all the demons on earth, and that they are known
to those exceedingly few persons who have carefully and intelligently investigated
these matters) will not endure a comparison to be made between them and
Apollo or Zeus, or any being worshipped with odour and blood and sacrifices;
some of them, so acting from their extreme simplicity, not being able to
give a reason for their conduct, but sincerely observing the precepts which
they have received; others, again, for reasons not to be lightly regarded,
nay, even of a profound description, and (as a Greek would say) drawn from
the inner nature of things;[4] and amongst the latter of these God is a
frequent subject of conversation, and those who are honoured by God, through
His only-begotten Word, with participation in His divinity, and therefore
also in His name. They speak much, too, both regarding the angels of God
and those who are opposed to the truth, but have been deceived; and who,
in consequence of being deceived, call them gods or angels of God, or good
demons, or heroes who have become such by the transference into them of
a good human soul.[5] And such Christians will also show, that as in philosophy
there are many who appear to be in possession of the truth, who have yet
either deceived themselves by plausible arguments, or by rashly assenting
to what was brought forward and discovered by others; so also, among those
souls which exist apart from bodies, both angels and demons, there are
some which have been induced by plausible reasons to declare themselves
gods. And because it was impossible that the reasons of such things could
be discovered by men with perfect exactness, it was deemed safe that no
mortal should entrust himself to any being as to God, with the exception
of Jesus Christ, who is, as it were, the Ruler over all things, and who
both beheld these weighty secrets, and made them known to a few.
CHAP. XXXVIII.
The belief, then, in Antinous,[5] or any other such person, whether
among the Egyptians or the Greeks, is, so to speak, unfortunate; while
the belief in Jesus would seem to be either a fortunate one, or the result
of thorough investigation, having the appearance of the former to the multitude,
and of the latter to exceedingly few.[7] And when I speak of a certain
belief being, as the multitude would call it, unfortunate, I in such a
case refer the cause to God, who knows the reasons of the various fates
allotted to each one who enters human life. The Greeks, moreover, will
admit that even amongst those who are considered to be most largely endowed
with wisdom, good fortune has had much to do, as in the choice of teachers
of one kind rather than another, and in meeting with a better class of
instructors (there being teachers who taught the most opposite doctrines),
and in being brought up in better circumstances; for the bringing up of
many has been amid surroundings of such a kind, that they were prevented
from ever receiving any idea of better things, but constantly passed their
life, from their earliest youth, either as the favourites of licentious
men or of tyrants, or in some other wretched condition which forbade the
soul to look upwards. And the causes of these varied fortunes, according
to all probability, are to be found in the reasons of providence, though
it is not easy for men to ascertain these; but I have said what I have
done by way of digression from the main body of my subject, on account
of the proverb, that "such is the power of faith, because it seizes that
which first presents itself."[8] For it was necessary, owing to the different
methods of education, to speak of the differences of belief among men,
some of whom are more, others less fortunate in their belief; and
480
from this to proceed to show that what is termed good or bad fortune
would appear to contribute even in the case of the most talented, to their
appearing to be more fully endowed with reason and to give their assent
on grounds of reason to the majority of human opinions. But enough on these
points.
CHAP. XXXIX.
We must notice the remarks which Celsus next makes, when he says to
us, that "faith, having taken possession of our minds, makes us yield the
assent which we give to the doctrine of Jesus;" for of a truth it is faith
which does produce such an assent. Observe, however, whether that faith
does not of itself exhibit what is worthy of praise, seeing we entrust
ourselves to the God who is over all, acknowledging our gratitude to Him
who has led us to such a faith, and declaring that He could not have attempted
or accomplished such a result without the divine assistance. And we have
confidence also in the intentions of the writers of the Gospels, observing
their piety and conscientiousness, manifested in their writings, which
contain nothing that is spurious, or deceptive,[1] or false, or cunning;
for it is evident to us that souls unacquainted with those artifices which
are taught by the cunning sophistry of the Greeks (which is characterized
by great plausibility and acuteness), and by the kind of rhetoric in vogue
in the courts of justice, would not have been able thus to invent occurrences
which are fitted of themselves to conduct to faith, and to a life in keeping
with faith. And I am of opinion that it was on this account that Jesus
wished to employ such persons as teachers of His doctrines, viz., that
there might be no ground for any suspicion of plausible sophistry, but
that it might clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding,
that the guileless purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked with
great simplicity, was deemed worthy of being accompanied by a diviner power,
which accomplished far more than it seemed possible could be accomplished
by a periphrasis of words, and a weaving of sentences, accompanied by all
the distinctions of Grecian art.
CHAP. XL.
But observe whether the principles of our faith, harmonizing with the
general ideas implanted in our minds at birth, do not produce a change
upon those who listen candidly to its statements; for although a perverted
view of things, with the aid of much instruction to the same effect, has
been able to implant in the minds of the multitude the belief that images
are gods, and that things made of gold, and silver, and ivory, and stone
are deserving of worship, yet common sense[2] forbids the supposition that
God is at all a piece of corruptible matter, or is honoured when made to
assume by men a form embodied in dead matter, fashioned according to some
image or symbol of His appearance. And therefore we say at once of images
that they are not gods, and of such creations (of art) that they are not
to be compared with the Creator, but are small in contrast with the God
who is over all, and who created, and upholds, and governs the universe.
And the rational soul recognising, as it were, its relationship (to the
divine), at once rejects what it for a time supposed to be gods, and resumes
its natural love[3] for its Creator; and because of its affection towards
Him, receives Him also who first presented these truths to all nations
through the disciples whom He had appointed, and whom He sent forth, furnished
with divine power and authority, to proclaim the doctrine regarding God
and His kingdom.
CHAP. XLI.
But since he has charged us, I know not how often already, "with regarding
this Jesus, who was but a mortal body, as a God, and with supposing that
we act piously in so doing," it is superfluous to say any more in answer
to this, as a great deal has been said in the preceding pages. And yet
let those who make this charge understand that He whom we regard and believe
to have been from the beginning God, and the Son of God, is the very Logos,
and the very Wisdom, and the very Truth; and with respect to His mortal
body, and the human soul which it contained, we assert that not by their
communion merely with Him, but by their unity and intermixture,[4] they
received the highest powers, and after participating in His divinity, were
changed into God. And if any one should feel a difficulty at our saying
this regarding His body, let him attend to what is said by the Greeks regarding
matter, which, properly speaking, being without qualities, receives such
as the Creator desires to invest it with, and which frequently divests
itself of those which it formerly possessed, and assumes others of a different
and higher kind. And if these opinions be correct, what is there wonderful
in this, that the mortal quality of the body of Jesus, if the providence
of God has so willed it, should have been changed into one that was ethereal
and divine?[5]
481
CHAP. XLII.
Celsus, then, does not speak as a good reasoner,(1) when he compares
the mortal flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, asserting that
the former is more liable to corruption than the latter. For, to speak
correctly, that which is incorruptible is not more free from corruption
than another thing which is incorruptible, nor that which is corruptible
more liable to corruption than another corruptible thing. But, admitting
that there are degrees of corruptibility, we can say in answer, that if
it is possible for the matter which underlies all qualities to exchange
some of them, how should it be impossible for the flesh of Jesus also to
exchange qualities, and to become such as it was proper for a body to be
which had its abode in the ether and the regions above it, and possessing
no longer the infirmities belonging to the flesh, and those properties
which Celsus terms "impurities," and in so terming them, speaks unlike
a philosopher? For that which is properly impure, is so because of its
wickedness. Now the nature of body is not impure; for in so far as it is
bodily nature, it does not possess vice, which is the generative principle
of impurity. But, as he had a suspicion of the answer which we would return,
he says with respect to the change of the body of Jesus, "Well, after he
has laid aside these qualities, he will be a God:" (and if so), why not
rather Aesculapius, and Dionysus, and Hercules? To which we reply, "What
great deed has AEsculapius, or Dionysus, or Hercules wrought?" And what
individuals will they be able to point out as having been improved in character,
and made better by their words and lives, so that they may make good their
claim to be gods? For let us peruse the many narratives regarding them,
and see whether they were free from licentiousness or injustice, or folly,
or cowardice. And if nothing of that kind be found in them, the argument
of Celsus might have force, which places the forenamed individuals upon
an equality with Jesus. But if it is certain that, although some things
are reported of them as reputable, they are recorded, nevertheless, to
have done innumerable things which are contrary to right reason, how could
you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting
aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?
CHAP. XLIII.
He next says of us, that "we ridicule those who worship Jupiter, because
his tomb is pointed out in the island of Crete; and yet we worship him
who rose from the tomb,(2) although ignorant of the grounds(3) on which
the Cretans observe such a custom." Observe now that he thus undertakes
the defence of the Cretans, and of Jupiter, and of his tomb, alluding obscurely
to the allegorical notions, in conformity with which the myth regarding
Jupiter is said to have been invented; while he assails us who acknowledge
that our Jesus has been buried, indeed, but who maintain that He has also
been raised from the tomb,--a statement which the Cretans have not yet
made regarding Jupiter. But since he appears to admit that the tomb of
Jupiter is in Crete, when he says that "we are ignorant of the grounds
on which the Cretans observe such a custom," we reply that Callimachus
the Cyrenian, who had read innumerable poetic compositions, and nearly
the whole of Greek history, was not acquainted with any allegorical meaning
which was contained in the stories about Jupiter and his tomb; and accordingly
he accuses the Cretans in his hymn addressed to Jupiter, in the words:(4)--
"The Cretans are always liars: for thy tomb, O king,
The Cretans have reared; and yet thou didst not die,
For thou ever livest."
Now he who said, "Thou didst not die, for thou ever livest," in denying
that Jupiter's tomb was in Crete, records nevertheless that in Jupiter
there was the beginning of death.(5) But birth upon earth is the beginning
of death. And his words run:--
"And Rhea bore thee among the Parrhasians;"--
whereas he ought to have seen, after denying that the birth of Jupiter
took place in Crete because of his tomb, that it was quite congruous with
his birth in Arcadia that he who was born should also die. And the following
is the manner in which Callimachus speaks of these things: "O Jupiter,
some say that thou weft born on the mountains of Ida, others in Arcadia.
Which of them, O father, have lied? The Cretans are always liars," etc.
Now it is Celsus who made us discuss these topics, by the unfair manner
in which he deals with Jesus, in giving his assent to what is related about
His death and burial, but regarding as an invention His resurrection from
the dead, although this was not only foretold by innumerable prophets,
but many proofs also were given of His having appeared after death.
CHAP. XLIV.
After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine
of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians,
not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class,
and asserts that "the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no
one come to us who has been instructed,
482
or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by
us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or
foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging
that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that
they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and
the stupid, with women and children."(1) In reply to which, we say that,
as if, while Jesus teaches continence, and says, "Whosoever looketh upon
a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in
his heart," one were to behold a few of those who are deemed to be Christians
living licentiously, he would most justly blame them for living contrary
to the teaching of Jesus, but would act most unreasonably if he were to
charge the Gospel with their censurable conduct; so, if he found nevertheless
that the doctrine of the Christians invites men to wisdom, the blame then
must remain with those who rest in their own ignorance, and who utter,
not what Celsus relates (for although some of them are simple and ignorant,
they do not speak so shamelessly as he alleges), but other things of much
less serious import, which, however, serve to turn aside men from the practice
of wisdom.
CHAP. XLV.
But that the object of Christianity(2) is that we should become wise, can be proved not only from the ancient Jewish writings, which we also use, but especially from those which were composed after the time of Jesus, and which are believed among the Churches to be divine. Now, in the fiftieth Psalm, David is described as saying in his prayer to God these words: "The unseen and secret things of Thy wisdom Thou hast manifested to me."(3) Solomon, too, because he asked for wisdom, received it; and if any one were to peruse the Psalms, he would find the book filled with many maxims of wisdom: and the evidences of his wisdom may be seen in his treatises, which contain a great amount of wisdom expressed in few words, and in which you will find many laudations of wisdom, and encouragements towards obtaining it. So wise, moreover, was Solomon, that "the queen of Sheba, having heard his name, and the name of the LORD, came to try him with difficult questions, and spake to him all things, whatsoever were in her heart; and Solomon answered her all her questions. There was no question omitted by the king which he did not answer her. And the queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon, and the possessions which he had(4) and there was no more spirit in her.(5) And she said to the king, The report is true which I heard in mine own land regarding thee and thy wisdom; and I believed not them who told me, until I had come, and mine eyes have seen it. And, lo, they did not tell me the half. Thou hast added wisdom and possessions above all the report which I heard."(6) It is recorded also of him, that "God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore. And the wisdom that was in Solomon greatly excelled the wisdom of all the ancients, and of all the wise men of Egypt; and he was wiser than all men, even than Gethan the Ezrahite, and Emad, and Chalcadi, and Aradab, the sons of Madi. And he was famous among all the nations round about. And Solomon spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were five thousand. And he spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop which springeth out of the wall; and also of fishes and of beasts. And all nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth who had heard of the fame of his wisdom."(7)
And to such a degree does the Gospel desire that there should be wise
men among believers, that for the sake of exercising the understanding
of its hearers, it has spoken certain truths in enigmas, others in what
are called "dark" sayings, others in parables, and others in problems.(8)
And one of the prophets--Hosea--says at the end of his prophecies: "Who
is wise, and he will understand these things? or prudent, and he shall
know them?"(9) Daniel, moreover, and his fellow-captives, made such progress
in the learning which the wise men around the king in Babylon cultivated,
that they were shown to excel all of them in a tenfold degree. And in the
book of Ezekiel it is said to the ruler of Tyre, who greatly prided himself
on his wisdom, "Art thou wiser than Daniel? Every secret was not revealed
to thee."(10)
CHAP. XLVI.
And if you come to the books written after the time of Jesus, you will
find that those multitudes of believers who hear the parables are, as it
were, "without," and worthy only of exoteric doctrines, while the disciples
learn in private the explanation of the parables. For, privately, to
483
His own disciples did Jesus open up all things, esteeming above the
multitudes those who desired to know His wisdom. And He promises to those
who believe upon Him to send them wise men and scribes, saying, "Behold,
I will send unto you wise men and scribes, and some of them they shall
kill and crucify.", And Paul also, in the catalogue of "charismata" bestowed
by God, placed first "the word of wisdom," and second, as being inferior
to it, "the word of knowledge," but third, and lower down, "faith."(2)
And because he regarded "the word" as higher than miraculous powers, he
for that reason places "workings of miracles" and "gifts of healings" in
a lower place than the gifts of the word. And in the Acts of the Apostles
Stephen bears witness to the great learning of Moses, which he had obtained
wholly from ancient writings not accessible to the multitude. For he says:
"And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians."(3) And therefore,
with respect to his miracles, it was suspected that he wrought them perhaps,
not in virtue of his professing to come from God, but by means of his Egyptian
knowledge, in which he was well versed. For the king, entertaining such
a suspicion, summoned the Egyptian magicians, and wise men, and enchanters,
who were found to be of no avail as against the wisdom of Moses, which
proved superior to all the wisdom of the Egyptians.
CHAP. XLVII.
But it is probable that what is written by Paul in the first Epistle
to the Corinthians,(4) as being addressed to Greeks who prided themselves
greatly on their Grecian wisdom, has moved some to believe that it was
not the object of the Gospel to win wise men. Now, let him who is of this
opinion understand that the Gospel, as censuring wicked men, says of them
that they are wise not in things which relate to the understanding, and
which are unseen and eternal; but that in busying themselves about things
of sense alone, and regarding these as all-important, they are wise men
of the world: for as there are in existence a multitude of opinions, some
of them espousing the cause of matter and bodies,(5) and asserting that
everything is corporeal which has a substantial existence,(6) and that
besides these nothing else exists, whether it be called invisible or incorporeal,
it says also that these constitute the wisdom of the world, which perishes
and fades away, and belongs only to this age, while those opinions which
raise the soul from things here to the blessedness which is with God, and
to His kingdom, and which teach men to despise all sensible and visible
things as existing only for a season, and to hasten on to things invisible,
and to have regard to those things which are not seen,--these, it says,
constitute the wisdom of God. But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of certain
wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are true, that "although
they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful."(7)
And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too, that this did not
happen to them without divine permission, in these words: "For God showed
it unto them;"(8) dimly alluding, I think, to those who ascend from things
of sense to those of the understanding, when he adds, "For the invisible
things of God from the creation of the world are Clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that
they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified
Him not as God, neither were thankful."(9)
CHAP. XLVIII.
And perhaps also from the words, "For ye see your calling, brethren,
how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise; and the base things, and the things which are despised, hath
God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are,
that no flesh may glory in His presence;(10) some have been led to suppose
that no one who is instructed, or wise, or prudent, embraces the Gospel.
Now, in answer to such an one, we would say that it has not been stated
that "no wise man according to the flesh," but that "not many wise men
according to the flesh," are called. It is manifest, further, that amongst
the characteristic qualifications of those who are termed "bishops," Paul,
in describing what kind of man the bishop ought to be, lays down as a qualification
that he should also be a teacher, saying that he ought to be able to convince
the gainsayers, that by the wisdom which is in him he may stop the mouths
of foolish talkers and deceivers.(11) And as he selects for the episcopate
a man who has been once married(12) rather than he who has twice entered
the married state,(13) and a man of blameless life rather than one who
is liable to censure, and a sober man rather than one who is not such,
and a prudent man rather
484
than one who is not prudent, and a man whose behaviour is decorous rather
than he who is open to the charge even of the slightest indecorum, so he
desires that he who is to be chosen by preference for the office of a bishop
should be apt to teach, and able to convince the gainsayers. How then can
Celsus justly charge us with saying, "Let no one come to us who is 'instructed,'
or 'wise,' or 'prudent?' " Nay, let him who wills come to us "instructed,"
and "wise," and "prudent;" and none the less, if any one be ignorant and
unintelligent, and uninstructed and foolish, let him also come: for it
is these whom the Gospel promises to cure, when they come, by rendering
them all worthy of God.
CHAP. XLIX.
This statement also is untrue, that it is "only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts." Such indeed does the Gospel invite, in order to make them better; but it invites also others who are very different from these, since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and "He is the propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."(1) After this it is superfluous for us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the following: "For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?" Truly it is no evil to have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those amongst the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to be wise, but not to seem so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean.
CHAP. L.
But let us see what those statements of his are which follow next in
these words: "Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in
the market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who gather crowds
around them, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to
exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob
of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent persons, thither they thrust
themselves in, and show themselves off." Observe, now, how he slanders
us in these words, comparing us to those who in the market-places perform
the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds around them! What disreputable
tricks, pray, do we perform? Or what is there in our conduct that resembles
theirs, seeing that by means of readings, and explanations of the things
read, we lead men to the worship of the God of the universe, and to the
cognate virtues, and turn them away from contemning Deity, and from all
things contrary to right reason? Philosophers verily would wish to collect
together such hearers of their discourses as exhort men to virtue,--a practice
which certain of the Cynics especially have followed, who converse publicly
with those whom they happen to meet. Will they maintain, then, that these
who do not gather together persons who are considered to have been educated,
but who invite and assemble hearers from the public street, resemble those
who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather
crowds around them? Neither Celsus, however, nor any one who holds the
same opinions, will blame those who, agreeably to what they regard as a
feeling of philanthropy, address their arguments to the ignorant populace.
CHAP. LI.
And if they are not to be blamed for so doing, let us see whether Christians
do not exhort multitudes to the practice of virtue in a greater and better
degree than they. For the philosophers who converse in public do not pick
and choose their hearers, but he who likes stands and listens. The Christians,
however, having previously, so far as possible, tested the souls of those
who wish to become their hearers, and having previously instructed(2) them
in private, when they appear (before entering the community) to have sufficiently
evinced their desire towards a virtuous life, introduce them then, and
not before, privately forming one class of those who are beginners, and
are receiving admission, but who have not yet obtained the mark of complete
purification; and another of those who have manifested to the best of their
ability their intention to desire no other things than are approved by
Christians; and among these there are certain persons appointed to make
inquiries regard-
485
ing the lives and behaviour of those who join them, in order that they
may prevent those who commit acts of infamy from coming into their public
assembly, while those of a different character they receive with their
whole heart, in order that they may daily make them better. And this is
their method of procedure, both with those who are sinners, and especially
with those who lead dissolute lives, whom they exclude from their community,
although, according to Celsus, they resemble those who in the market-places
perform the most shameful tricks. Now the venerable school of the Pythagoreans
used to erect a cenotaph to those who had apostatized from their system
of philosophy, treating them as dead; but the Christians lament as dead
those who have been vanquished by licentiousness or any other sin, because
they are lost and dead to God, and as being risen from the dead (if they
manifest a becoming change) they receive them afterwards, at some future
time, after a greater interval than in the case of those who were admitted
at first, but not placing in any office or post of rank in the Church of
God those who, after professing the Gospel, lapsed and fell.
CHAP. LII.
Observe now with regard to the following statement of Celsus, "We see
also those persons who in the market-places perform most disreputable tricks,
and collect crowds around them," whether a manifest falsehood has not been
uttered, and things compared which have no resemblance. He says that these
individuals, to whom he compares us, who "perform the most disreputable
tricks in the market-places and collect crowds, would never approach an
assembly of wise men, nor dare to show off their tricks before them; but
wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of foolish
people, thither do they thrust themselves in and make a display." Now,
in speaking thus he does nothing else than simply load us with abuse, like
the women upon the public streets, whose object is to slander one another;
for we do everything in our power to secure that our meetings should be
composed of wise men, and those things among us which are especially excellent
and divine we then venture to bring forward publicly in our discussions
when we have an abundance of intelligent hearers, while we conceal and
pass by in silence the truths of deeper import when we see that our audience
is composed of simpler minds, which need such instruction as is figuratively
termed "milk."
CHAP. LIII.
For the word is used by our Paul in writing to the Corinthians, who were Greeks, and not yet purified in their morals: "I have fed you with milk, not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able, for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"(1) Now the same writer,(2) knowing that there was a certain kind of nourishment better adapted for the soul, and that the food of those young(3) persons who were admitted was compared to milk, continues: "And ye are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."(4) Would then those who believe these words to be well spoken, suppose that the noble doctrines of our faith would never be mentioned in an assembly of wise men, but that wherever (our instructors) see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a collection of foolish individuals, they bring publicly forward divine and venerable truths, and before such persons make a display of themselves in treating of them? But it is clear to him who examines the whole spirit of our writings, that Celsus is animated with a hatred against the human race resembling that of the ignorant populace, and gives utterance to these falsehoods without examination.
CHAP. LIV.
We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so, that we
do desire to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give to young
men the exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to show to slaves
how they may recover freedom of thought,(5) and be ennobled by the word.
And those amongst us who are the ambassadors of Christianity sufficiently
declare that they are debtors(6) to Greeks and Barbarians, to wise men
and fools, (for they do not deny their obligation to cure the souls even
of foolish persons,) in order that as far as possible they may lay aside
their ignorance, and endeavour to obtain greater prudence, by listening
also to the words of Solomon: "Oh, ye fools, be of an understanding heart,"(7)
and "Who is the most simple among you, let him turn unto me;"(8) and wisdom
exhorts those who are devoid of understanding in the words, "Come, eat
of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mixed for you. Forsake
folly that ye may
486
live, and correct understanding in knowledge."(1) This too would I say
(seeing it bears on the point),(2) in answer to the statement of Celsus:
Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? and do they not
encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? and do they
not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then, with philosophers
who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue? with Pythagoras for
having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and with those who recently
encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy? Is it indeed permissible
for you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves and foolish persons to the
study of philosophy, but if we do so, we do not act from philanthropic
motives in wishing to heal every rational nature with the medicine of reason,
and to bring them into fellowship with God, the Creator of all things?
These remarks, then, may suffice in answer to what are slanders rather
than accusations(3) on the part of Celsus.
CHAP. LV.
But as Celsus delights to heap up calumnies against us, and, in addition
to those which he has already uttered, has added others, let us examine
these also, and see whether it be the Christians or Celsus who have reason
to be ashamed of what is said. He asserts, "We see, indeed, in private
houses workers in wool and leather, and fullers, and persons of the most
uninstructed and rustic character, not venturing to utter a word in the
presence of their elders and wiser masters;(4) but when they get hold of
the children privately, and certain women as ignorant as themselves, they
pour forth wonderful statements, to the effect that they ought not to give
heed to their father and to their teachers, but should obey them; that
the former are foolish and stupid, and neither know nor can perform anything
that is really good, being preoccupied with empty trifles; that they alone
know how men ought to live, and that, if the children obey them, they will
both be happy themselves, and will make their home happy also. And while
thus speaking, if they see one of the instructors of youth approaching,
or one of the more intelligent class, or even the father himself, the more
timid among them become afraid, while the more forward incite the children
to throw off the yoke, whispering that in the presence of father and teachers
they neither will nor can explain to them any good thing, seeing they turn
away with aversion from the silliness and stupidity of such persons as
being altogether corrupt, and far advanced in wickedness, and such as would
inflict punishment upon them; but that if they wish (to avail themselves
of their aid,) they must leave their father and their instructors, and
go with the women and their playfellows to the women's apartments, or to
the leather shop, or to the fuller's shop, that they may attain to perfection;--and
by words like these they gain them over."
CHAP. LVI.
Observe now how by such statements he depreciates those amongst us who
are teachers of the word, and who strive in every way to raise the soul
to the Creator of all things, and who show that we ought to despise things
"sensible," and "temporal," and "visible," and to do our utmost to reach
communion with God, and the contemplation of things that are "intelligent,"
and "invisible," and a blessed life with God, and the friends of God; comparing
them to "workers in wool in private houses, and to leather-cutters, and
to fullers, and to the most rustic of mankind, who carefully incite young
boys to wickedness, and women to forsake their fathers and teachers, and
follow them." Now let Celsus point out from what wise parent, or from what
teachers, we keep away children and women, and let him ascertain by comparison
among those children and women who are adherents of our doctrine, whether
any of the opinions which they formerly heard are better than ours, and
in what manner we draw away children and women from noble and venerable
studies, and incite them to worse things. But he will not be able to make
good any such charge against us, seeing that, on the contrary, we turn
away women from a dissolute life, and from being at variance with those
with whom they live, from all mad desires after theatres and dancing, and
from superstition; while we train to habits of self-restraint boys just
reaching the age of puberty, and feeling a desire for sexual pleasures,
pointing out to them not only the disgrace which attends those sins, but
also the state to which the soul of the wicked is reduced through practices
of that kind, and the judgments which it will suffer, and the punishments
which will be inflicted.
CHAP. LVII.
But who are the teachers whom we call triflers and fools, whose defence
is undertaken by Celsus, as of those who teach better things? (I know not,)
unless he deem those to be good instructors of women, and no triflers,
who invite them to superstition and to unchaste spectacles, and those,
moreover, to be teachers not devoid
487
of sense who lead and drag the young men to all those disorderly acts which we know are often committed by them. We indeed call away these also, as far as we can, from the dogmas of philosophy to our worship of God, by showing forth its excellence aud purity. But as Celsus, by his statements, has declared that we do not do so, but that we call only the foolish, I would say to him, "If you had charged us with withdrawing from the study of philosophy those who were already preoccupied with it, you would not have spoken the truth, and yet your charge would have had an appearance of probability; but when you now say that we draw away our adherents from good teachers, show who are those other teachers save the teachers of philosophy, or those who have been appointed to give instruction in some useful branch of study."(1)
He will be unable, however, to show any such.; while we promise, openly
and not in secret, that they will be happy who live according to the word
of God, and who look to Him in all things, and who do everything, whatever
it is, as if in the presence of God. Are these the instructions of workers
in wool, and of leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated rustics? But
such an assertion he cannot make good.
CHAP. LVIII.
But those who, in the opinion of Celsus, resemble the workers in wool
in private houses, and the leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated
rustics, will, he alleges, in the presence of father or teachers be unwilling
to speak, or unable to explain to the boys anything that is good. In answer
to which, we would say, What kind of father, my good sir, and what kind
of teacher, do you mean? If you mean one who approves of virtue, and turns
away from vice, and welcomes what is better, then know, that with the greatest
boldness will we declare our opinions to the children, because we will
be in good repute with such a judge. But if, in the presence of a father
who has a hatred of virtue and goodness, we keep silence, and also before
those who teach what is contrary to sound doctrine, do not blame us for
so doing, since you will blame us without good reason. You, at all events,
in a case where fathers deemed the mysteries of philosophy an idle and
unprofitable occupation for their sons, and for young men in general, would
not, in teaching philosophy, make known its secrets before worthless parents;
but, desiring to keep apart those sons of wicked parents who had been turned
towards the study of philosophy, you would observe the proper seasons,
in order that the doctrines of philosophy might reach the minds of the
young men. And we say the same regarding our teachers. For if we turn (our
hearers) away from those instructors who teach obscene comedies and licentious
iambics, and many other things which neither improve the speaker nor benefit
the bearers (because the latter do not know how to listen to poetry in
a philosophic frame of mind, nor the former how to say to each of the young
men what tends to his profit), we are not, in following such a course,
ashamed to confess what we do. But if you will show me teachers who train
young men for philosophy, and who exercise them in it, I will not from
such turn away young men, but will try to raise them, as those who have
been previously exercised in the whole circle of learning and in philosophical
subjects, to the venerable and lofty height of eloquence which lies hid
from the multitude of Christians, where are discussed topics of the greatest
importance, and where it is demonstrated and shown that they have been
treated philosophically both by the prophets of God and the apostles of
Jesus.
CHAP. LIX.
Immediately after this, Celsus, perceiving that he has slandered us
with too great bitterness, as if by way of defence expresses himself as
follows: "That I bring no heavier charge than what the truth compels me,
any one may see from the following remarks. Those who invite to participation
in other mysteries, make proclamation as follows: 'Every one who has clean
hands, and a prudent tongue;'(2) others again thus: 'He who is pure from
all pollution, and whose soul is conscious of no evil, and who has lived
well and justly.' Such is the proclamation made by those who promise purification
from sins.(3) But let us hear what kind of persons these Christians invite.
Every one, they say, who is a sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who
is a child, and, to speak generally, whoever is unfortunate, him will the
kingdom of God receive. Do you not call him a sinner, then, who is unjust,
and a thief, and a housebreaker, and a poisoner, and a committer of sacrilege,
and a robber of the dead? What others would a man invite if he were issuing
a proclamation for an assembly of robbers?" Now, in answer to such statements,
we say that it is not the same thing to invite those who are sick in saul
to be cured, and those who are in health to the knowledge and study of
divine things. We, however, keeping both these things in view, at first
invite all men to be healed, and exhort those
488
who are sinners to come to the consideration of the doctrines which
teach men not to sin, and those who are devoid of understanding to those
which beget wisdom, and those who are children to rise in their thoughts
to manhood, and those who are simply(1) unfortunate to good fortune,(2)
or--which is the more appropriate term to use--to blessedness.(3) And when
those who have been turned towards virtue have made progress, and have
shown that they have been purified by the word, and have led as far as
they can a better life, then and not before do we invite them to participation
in our mysteries. "For we speak wisdom among them that are perfect."(4)
CHAP. LX.
And as we teach, moreover, that "wisdom will not enter into the soul
of a base man, nor dwell in a body that is involved in sin,"(5) we say,
Whoever has clean hands, and therefore lifts up holy hands to God, and
by reason of being occupied with elevated and heavenly things, can say,
"The lifting up of my hands is as the evening sacrifice,'(6) let him come
to us; and whoever has a wise tongue through meditating on the law of the
Lord day and night, and by "reason of habit has his senses exercised to
discern between good and evil," let him have no reluctance in coming to
the strong and rational sustenance which is adapted to those who are athletes
in piety and every virtue. And since the grace of God is with all those
who love with a pure affection the teacher of the doctrines of immortality,
whoever is pure not only from all defilement, but from what are regarded
as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the mysteries
of Jesus, which properly are made known only to the holy and the pure.
The initiated of Celsus accordingly says, "Let him whose soul is conscious
of no evil come." But he who acts as initiator, according to the precepts
of Jesus, will say to those who have been purified in heart, "He whose
soul has, for a long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since
he yielded h.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
.
. ..
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . !. ". #.
$. %. &. '. (. ). *. +. ,. -. .. /. 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. þÿÿÿþÿÿÿ9.
:. ;. <. =. >. ?. @. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P.
þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿimself
to the healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were
spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples." Therefore in the
comparison which he institutes between the procedure of the initiators
into the Grecian mysteries, and the teachers of the doctrine of Jesus,
he does not know the difference between inviting the wicked to be healed,
and initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries!
CHAP. LXI.
Not to participation in mysteries, then, and to fellowship in the wisdom
hidden in a mystery, which God ordained before the world to the glory of
His saints,(7) do we invite the wicked man, and the thief, and the housebreaker,
and the prisoner, and the committer of sacrilege, and the plunderer of
the dead, and all those others whom Celsus may enumerate in his exaggerating
style, but such as these we invite to be healed. For there are in the divinity
of the word some helps towards the cure of those who are sick, respecting
which the word says, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they
that are sick;"(8) others, gain, which to the pure in soul and body exhibit
"the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
but now is made manifest by the Scriptures of the prophets,"(9) and "by
the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,"(10) which "appearing" is manifested
to each one of those who are perfect, and which enlightens the reason"
in the true" knowledge of things. But as he exaggerates the charges against
us, adding, after his list of those vile individuals whom he has mentioned,
this remark, "What other persons would a robber summon to himself by proclamation?"
we answer such a question by saying that a robber summons around him individuals
of such a character, in order to make use of their villany against the
men whom they desire to slay and plunder. A Christian, on the other hand,
even though he invite those whom the robber invites, invites them to a
very different vocation, viz. to bind up these wounds by His word, and
to apply to the soul, festering amid evils, the drugs obtained from the
word, and which are analogous to the wine and oil, and plasters, and other
healing appliances which belong to the art of medicine.
CHAP. LXII.
In the next place, throwing a slur(13) upon the exhortations spoken
and written to those who have led wicked lives, and which invite them to
repentance and reformation of heart, he asserts that we say "that it was
to sinners that God has been sent." Now this statement of his is much the
same as if he were to find fault with certain persons for saying that on
account of the sick who were living in a city, a physician had been sent
them by a very benevolent monarch.(14) God the Word was sent, indeed, as
a physician
489
to sinners, but as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are already
pure and who sin no more. But Celsus, unable to see this distinction,--for
he had no desire to be animated with a love of truth,--remarks, "Why was
he not sent to those who were without sin? What evil is it not to have
committed sin?" To which we reply, that if by those "who were without sin"
he means those who sin no more, then our Saviour Jesus was sent even to
such, but not as a physician. While if by those "who were without sin"
he means such as have never at any time sinned,--for he made no distinction
in his statement,--we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be
without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood
to be in Christ Jesus,(1) who "did no sin." It is with a malicious intent,
indeed, that Celsus says of us that we assert that "God will receive the
unrighteousness man if he humble himself on account of his wickedness,
but that He will not receive the righteous man, although he look up to
Him, (adorned) with virtue from the beginning." Now we assert that it is
impossible for a man to look up to God (adorned) with virtue from the beginning.
For wickedness must necessarily first exist in men. As Paul also says,
"When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."(2) Moreover, we do
not teach regarding the unrighteous man, that it is sufficient for him
to humble himself on account of his wickedness in order to his being accepted
by God, but that God will accept him if, after passing condemnation upon
himself for his past conduct, he walk humbly on account of it, and in a
becoming manner for the time to come.
CHAP. LXIII.
After this, not understanding how it has been said that "every one who
exalted himself shall be abased;"(3) nor (although taught even by Plato)
that "the good and virtuous man walketh humbly and orderly;" and ignorant,
moreover, that we give the injunction, "Humble yourselves, therefore, under
the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time;"(4) he says
that "those persons who preside properly over a trial make those individuals
who bewail before them their evil deeds to cease from their piteous wailings,
lest their decisions should be determined rather by compassion than by
a regard to truth; whereas God does not decide in accordance with truth,
but in accordance with flattery."(5) Now, what words of flattery and piteous
walling are contained in the Holy Scriptures when the sinner says in his
prayers to God, "I have acknowledged my sin, and mine iniquity have I not
hid. I said, I will confess my transgression to the Lord," etc., etc.?
For is he able to show that a procedure of this kind is not adapted to
the conversion of sinners, who humble themselves in their prayers under
the hand of God? And, becoming confused by his efforts to accuse us, he
contradicts himself; appearing at one time to know a man "without sin,"
and "a righteous man, who can look up to God (adorned) with virtue from
the beginning;" and at another time accepting our statement that there
is no man altogether righteous, or without sin;(6) for, as if he admitted
its truth, he remarks, "This is indeed apparently true, that somehow the
human race is naturally inclined to sin." In the next place, as if all
men were not invited by the word, he says, "All men, then, without distinction,
ought to be invited, since all indeed are sinners." And yet, in the preceding
pages, we have pointed out the words of Jesus: "Come unto Me, all ye that
labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."(7) All men, therefore,
labouring and being heavy laden on account of the nature of sin, are invited
to the rest spoken of in the word of God, "for God sent His word, and healed
them, and delivered them from their destructions."(8)
CHAP. LXIV.
But since he says, in addition to this, "What is this preference of
sinners over others?" and makes other remarks of a similar nature, we have
to reply that absolutely a sinner is not preferred before one who is not
a sinner; but that sometimes a sinner, who has become conscious of his
own sin, and for that reason comes to repentance, being humbled on account
of his sins, is preferred before one who is accounted a lesser sinner,
but who does not consider himself one, but exalts himself on the ground
of certain good qualities which he thinks he possesses, and is greatly
elated on their account. And this is manifest to those who are willing
to peruse the Gospels in a spirit of fairness, by the parable of the publican,
who said, "Be merciful to me a sinner,"(9) and of the Pharisee who boasted
with a certain wicked self-conceit in the words, "I thank Thee that I am
not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican."(10) For Jesus subjoins to his narrative of them both the words:
"This man went down
490
to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth
himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."(1)
We utter no blasphemy, then, against God, neither are we guilty of falsehood,
when we teach that every man, whoever he may be, is conscious of human
infirmity in comparison with the greatness of God, and that we must ever
ask from Him, who alone is able to supply our deficiencies, what is wanting
to our (mortal) nature.
CHAP. LXV.
He imagines, however, that we utter these exhortations for the conversion
of sinners, because we are able to gain over no one who is really good
and righteous, and therefore open our gates to the most unholy and abandoned
of men. But if any one will fairly observe our assemblies we can present
a greater number of those who have been converted from not a very wicked
life, than of those who have committed the most abominable sins. For naturally
those who are conscious to themselves of better things, desire that those
promises may be true which are declared by God regarding the reward of
the righteous, and thus assent more readily to the statements (of Scripture)
than those do who have led very wicked lives, and who are prevented by
their very consciousness (of evil) from admitting that they will be punished
by the Judge of all with such punishment as befits those who have sinned
so greatly, and as would not be inflicted by the Judge of all contrary
to fight reason? Sometimes, also, when very abandoned men are willing to
accept the doctrine of (future) punishment, on account of the hope which
is based upon repentance, they are prevented from so doing by their habit
of sinning, being constantly dipped,(3) and, as it were, dyed(4) in wickedness,
and possessing no longer the power to turn from it easily to a proper life,
and one regulated according to right reason. And although Celsus observes
this, he nevertheless, I know not why, expresses himself in the following
terms: "And yet, indeed, it is manifest to every one that no one by chastisement,
much less by merciful treatment, could effect a complete change in those
who are sinners both by nature and custom, for to change nature is an exceedingly
difficult thing. But they who are without sin are partaken of a better
life."
CHAP. LXVI.
Now here Celsus appears to me to have committed a great error, in refusing
to those who are sinners by nature, and also by habit, the possibility
of a complete transformation, alleging that they cannot be cured even by
punishment. For it clearly appears that all men are inclined to sin by
nature,(5) and some not only by nature but by practice, while not all men
are incapable of an entire transformation. For there are found in every
philosophical sect, and in the word of God, persons who are related to
have undergone so great a change that they may be proposed as a model of
excellence of life. Among the names of the heroic age some mention Hercules
and Ulysses, among those of later times, Socrates, and of those who have
lived very recently, Musonius.(6) Not only against us, then, did Celsus
utter the calumny, when he said that "it was manifest to every one that
those who were given to sin by nature and habit could not by any means--even
by punishments--be completely changed for the better," but also against
the noblest names in philosophy, who have not denied that the recovery
of virtue was a possible thing for men. But although he did not express
his meaning with exactness, we shall nevertheless, though giving his words
a more favourable construction, convict him of unsound reasoning. For his
words were: "Those who are inclined to sin by nature and habit, no one
could completely reform even by chastisement;" and his words, as we understood
them, we refuted to the best of our ability.(7)
CHAP. LXVII.
It is probable, however, that he meant to convey some such meaning as
this, that those who were both by nature and habit given to the commission
of those sins which are committed by the most abandoned of men, could not
be completely transformed even by punishment. And yet this is shown to
be false from the history of certain philosophers. For who is there that
would not rank among the most abandoned of men the individual who somehow
submitted to yield himself to his master, when he placed him in a brothel,(8)
that he might allow himself to be polluted by any one who liked? And yet
such a circumstance is related of Phaedo! And who will not agree that he
who burst, accompanied with a flute-player and a party of revellers, his
profligate associates, into the school of the venerable Xenocrates, to
insult a man who was the admiration of his friends, was not one of the
greatest miscreants(9) among mankind? Yet, notwithstanding this, reason
was powerful enough
491
to effect their conversion, and to enable them to make such progress in philosophy, that the one was deemed worthy by Plato to recount the discourse of Socrates on immortality, and to record his firmness in prison, when he evinced his contempt of the hemlock, and with all fearlessness and tranquillity of mind treated of subjects so numerous and important, that it is difficult even for those to follow them who are giving their utmost attention, and who are disturbed by no distraction; while Polemon, on the other hand, who from a profligate became a man of most temperate life, was successor in the school of Xenocrates, so celebrated for his venerable character. Celsus then does not speak the truth when he says "that sinners by nature and habit cannot be completely reformed even by chastisement."
CHAP. LXVIII.
That philosophical discourses, however, distinguished by orderly arrangement
and elegant expression, (1) should produce such results in the case of
those individuals just enumerated, and upon others (2) who have led wicked
lives, is not at all to be wondered at. But when we consider that those
discourses, which Celsus terms "vulgar," (3) are filled with power, as
if they were spells, and see that they at once convert multitudes from
a life of licentiousness to one of extreme regularity, (4) and from a life
of wickedness to a better, and from a state of cowardice or unmanliness
to one of such high-toned courage as to lead men to despise even death
through the piety which shows itself within them, why should we not justly
admire the power which they contain? For the words of those who at the
first assumed the office of (Christian) ambassadors, and who gave their
labours to rear up the Churches of God,--nay, their preaching also,--were
accompanied with a persuasive power, though not like that found among those
who profess the philosophy of Plato, or of any other merely human philosopher,
which possesses no other qualities than those of human nature. But the
demonstration which followed the words of the apostles of Jesus was given
from God, and was accredited s by the Spirit and by power. And therefore
their word ran swiftly and speedily, or rather the word of God through
their instrumentality, transformed numbers of persons who had been sinners
both by nature and habit, whom no one could have reformed by punishment,
but who were changed by the word, which moulded and transformed them according
to its pleasure.
CHAP. LXIX.
Celsus continues in his usual manner, asserting that "to change a nature entirely is exceedingly difficult." We, however, who know of only one nature in every rational soul, and who maintain that none has been created evil by the Author of all things, but that many have become wicked through education, and perverse example, and surrounding influences, (6) so that wickedness has been naturalized (7) in some individuals, are persuaded that for the word of God to change a nature in which evil has been naturalized is not only not impossible, but is even a work of no very great difficulty, if a man only believe that he must entrust himself to the God of all things, and do everything with a view to please Him with whom it cannot be (8) that
"Both good and bad are in the same honour,
Or that the idle man and he who laboured much Perish alike." (9)
But even if it be exceedingly difficult to effect a change in some persons,
the cause must be held to lie in their own will, which is reluctant to
accept the belief that the God over all things is a just Judge of all the
deeds done during life. For deliberate choice and practice (10) avail much
towards the accomplishment of things which appear to be very difficult,
and, to speak hyperbolically, almost impossible. Has the nature of man,
when desiring to walk along a rope extended in the air through the middle
of the theatre, and to carry at the same time numerous and heavy weights,
been able by practice and attention to accomplish such a feat; but when
desiring to live in conformity with the practice of virtue, does it find
it impossible to do so, although formerly it may have been exceedingly
wicked? See whether he who holds such views does not bring a charge against
the nature of the Creator of the rational animal" rather than against the
creature, if He has formed the nature of man with powers for the attainment
of things of such difficulty, and of no utility whatever, but has rendered
it incapable of securing its own blessedness. But these remarks may suffice
as an answer to the assertion that "entirely to change a nature is exceedingly
difficult." He alleges, in the next place, that "they who are without sin
are partakers of a better life;" not making it clear what he means by "those
who are without sin," whether those who are so from the beginning (of their
lives), or those who become so by a transformation. Of those who were so
from the beginning of their lives, there cannot possibly be any; while
those who are so after a
492
transformation (of heart) are found to be few in number, being those
who have become so after giving in their alIegiance to the saving word.
And they were not such when they gave in their allegiance. For, apart from
the aid of the word, and that too the word of perfection, it is impossible
for a man to become free from sin.
CHAP. LXX.
In the next place, he objects to the statement, as if it were maintained by us, that "God will be able to do all things," not seeing even here how these words are meant, and what "the all things" are which are included in it, and how it is said that God "will be able." But on these matters it is not necessary now to speak; for although he might with a show of reason have opposed this proposition, he has not done so. Perhaps he did not understand the arguments which might be plausibly used against it, or if he did, he saw the answers that might be returned. Now in our judgment God can do everything which it is possible for Him to do without ceasing to be God, and good, and wise. But Celsus asserts--not comprehending the meaning of the expression "God can do all things "--" that He will not desire to do anything wicked," admitting that He has the power, but not the will, to commit evil. We, on the contrary, maintain that as that which by nature possesses the property of sweetening other things through its own inherent sweetness cannot produce bitterness contrary to its own peculiar nature, (1) nor that whose nature it is to produce light through its being light can cause darkness; so neither is God able to commit wickedness, for the power of doing evil is contrary to His deity and its omnipotence. Whereas if any one among existing things is able to commit wickedness from being inclined to wickedness by nature, it does so from not having in its nature the ability not to do evil.
CHAP. LXXI.
He next assumes what is not granted by the more rational class of believers,
but what perhaps is considered to be true by some who are devoid of intelligence,--viz.,
that "God, like those who are overcome with pity, being Himself overcome,
alleviates the sufferings of the wicked through pity for their wailings,
and casts off the good, who do nothing of that kind, which is the height
of injustice." Now, in our judgment, God lightens the suffering of no wicked
man who has not betaken himself to a virtuous life, and casts off no one
who is already good, nor yet alleviates the suffering of any one who mourns,
simply because he utters lamentation, or takes pity upon him, to use the
word pity in its more common acceptation. (2) But those who have passed
severe condemnation upon themselves because of their sins, and who, as
on that account, lament and bewail themselves as lost, so far as their
previous conduct is concerned, and who have manifested a satisfactory change,
are received by God on account of their repentance, as those who have undergone
a transformation from a life of great wickedness. For virtue, taking up
her abode in the souls of these persons, and expelling the wickedness which
had previous possession of them, produces an oblivion of the past. And
even although virtue do not effect an entrance, yet if a considerable progress
take place in the soul, even that is sufficient, in the proportion that
it is progressive, to drive out and destroy the flood of wickedness, so
that it almost ceases to remain in the soul.
CHAP. LXXII.
In the next place, speaking as in the person of a teacher of our doctrine,
he expresses himself as follows: "Wise men reject what we say, being led
into error, and ensnared by their wisdom." In reply to which we say that,
since wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human things and of their causes,
or, as it is defined by the word of God, "the breath of the power of God,
and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty; and the brightness
of the everlasting light, and the unspotted mirror of the power of God,
and the image of His goodness," (3) no one who was really wise would reject
what is said by a Christian acquainted with the principles of Christianity,
or would be led into error, or ensnared by it. For true wisdom does not
mislead, but ignorance does, while of existing things knowledge alone is
permanent, and the truth which is derived from wisdom. But if, contrary
to the definition of wisdom, you call any one whatever who dogmatizes with
sophistical opinions wise, we answer that in conformity with what you call
wisdom, such an one rejects the words of God, being misled and ensnared
by plausible sophisms. And since, according to our doctrine, wisdom is
not the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of evil, so to speak, is in
those who hold false opinions and who are deceived by them, I would therefore
in such persons term it ignorance rather than wisdom.
CHAP. LXXIII.
After this he again slanders the ambassador of Christianity, and gives
out regarding him that he relates "ridiculous things," although he does
not show or clearly point out what are the things
493
which he calls "ridiculous." And in his slanders he says that "no wise
man believes the Gospel, being driven away by the multitudes who adhere
to it." And in this he acts like one who should say that owing to the multitude
of those ignorant persons who are brought into subjection to the laws,
no wise man would yield obedience to Solon, for example, or to Lycurgus,
or Zaleucus, or any other legislator, and especially if by wise man he
means one who is wise (by living) in conformity with virtue. For, as with
regard to these ignorant persons, the legislators, according to their ideas
of utility, caused them to be surrounded with appropriate guidance and
laws, so God, legislating through Jesus Christ for men in all parts of
the world, brings: to Himself even those who are not wise in the way in
which it is possible for such persons to be brought to a better life. And
God, well knowing this, as we have already shown in the preceding pages,
says in the books of Moses "They have moved Me to jealousy with that which
is not God; they have provoked Me to anger with their idols: and I will
move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke
them to anger with a foolish nation." (1) And Paul also, knowing this,
said, "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise," (2) calling, in a general way, wise all who appear to have made
advances in knowledge, but have fallen into an atheistic polytheism, since
"professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory
of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and
to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." (3)
CHAP. LXXIV.
He accuses the Christian teacher, moreover of" seeking after the unintelligent."
In answer we ask, Whom do you mean by the "unintelligent?" For, to speak
accurately, every wicked man is "unintelligent." If then by "unintelligent"
you mean the wicked, do you, in drawing men to philosophy, seek to gain
the wicked or the virtuous? (4) But it is impossible to gain the virtuous,
because they have already given themselves to philosophy. The wicked, then,
(you try to gain;) but if they are wicked, are they "unintelligent?" And
many such you seek to win over to philosophy, and you therefore seek the
"unintelligent." But if I seek after those who are thus termed "unintelligent,"
I act like a benevolent physician, who should seek after the sick in order
to help and cure them. If, bow-ever, by "unintelligent" you mean persons
who are not clever, (5) but the inferior class of men intellectually, (6)
I shall answer that I endeavour to improve such also to the best of my
ability, although I would not desire to build up the Christian community
out of such materials. For I seek in preference those who are more clever
and acute, because they are able to comprehend the meaning of the hard
sayings, and of those passages in the law, and prophecies, and Gospels,
which are expressed with obscurity, and which you have despised as not
containing anything worthy of notice, because you have not ascertained
the meaning which they contain, nor tried to enter into the aim of the
writers.
CHAP. LXXV.
But as he afterwards says that "the teacher of Christianity acts like
a person who promises to restore patients to bodily health, but who prevents
them from consulting skilled physicians, by whom his ignorance would be
exposed," we shall inquire in reply, "What are the physicians to whom you
refer, from whom we turn away ignorant individuals.? For you do not suppose
that we exhort those to embrace the Gospel who are devoted to philosophy,
so that you would regard the latter as the physicians from whom we keep
away such as we invite to come to the word of God." He indeed will make
no answer, because he cannot name the physicians; or else he will be obliged
to betake himself to those of them who are ignorant, and who of their own
accord servilely yield themselves to the worship of many gods, and to whatever
other opinions are entertained by ignorant individuals. In either case,
then, he will be shown to have employed to no purpose in his argument the
illustration of "one who keeps others away from skilled physicians." But
if, in order to preserve from the philosophy of Epicurus, and from such
as are considered physicians after his system, those who are deceived by
them, why should we not be acting most reasonably in keeping such away
from a dangerous disease caused by the physicians of Celsus,--that, viz.,
which leads to the annihilation of providence, and the introduction of
pleasure as a good? But let it be conceded that we do keep away those whom
we encourage to become our disciples from other philosopher-physicians,--from
the Peripatetics, for example, who deny the existence of providence and
the relation of Deity to man,--why shall we not piously train (7) and heal
those who have been thus encouraged, persuading them to devote themselves
to the God of all things, and
494
free those who yield obedience to us from the great wounds inflicted by the words of such as are deemed to be philosophers? Nay, let it also be admitted that-we turn away from physicians of the sect of the Stoics, who introduce a corruptible god, and assert that his essence consists of a body, which is capable of being changed and altered in all its parts, (1) and who also maintain that all things will one day perish, and that God alone will be left; why shall we not even thus emancipate our subjects from evils, and bring them by pious arguments to devote themselves to the Creator, and to admire the Father of the Christian system, who has so arranged that instruction of the most benevolent kind, and fitted for the conversion of souls, (2) should be distributed throughout the whole human race? Nay, if we should cure those who have fallen into the folly of believing in the transmigration of souls through the teaching of physicians, who will have it that the rational nature descends sometimes into all kinds of irrational animals, and sometimes into that state of being which is incapable of using the imagination, (3) why should we not improve the souls of our subjects by means of a doctrine which does not teach that a state of insensibility or irrationalism is produced in the wicked instead of punishment, but which shows that the labours and chastisements inflicted upon the wicked by God are a kind of medicines leading to conversion? For those who are intelligent Christians, (4) keeping this in view, deal with the simple-minded, as parents do with very young s children. We do not betake ourselves then to young persons and silly rustics, saying to them, "Flee from physicians." Nor do we say, "See that none of you lay hold of knowledge;" nor do we assert that "knowledge is an evil;" nor are we mad enough to say that "knowledge causes men to lose their soundness of mind." We would not even say that any one ever perished through wisdom; and although we give instruction, we never say, "Give heed to me," but "Give heed to the God of all things, and to Jesus, the giver of instruction concerning Him." And none of us is so great a braggart (6) as to say what Celsus put in the mouth of one of our teachers to his acquaintances, "I alone will save you." Observe here the lies which he utters against us! Moreover, we do not assert that "true physicians destroy those whom they promise to cure."
CHAP. LXXVI.
And he produces a second illustration to our disadvantage, saying that
"our teacher acts like a drunken man, who, entering a company of drunkards,
should accuse those who are sober of being drunk." But let him show, say
from the writings of Paul, that the apostle of Jesus gave way to drunkenness,
and that his words were not those of soberness; or from the writings of
John, that his thoughts do not breathe a spirit of temperance and of freedom
from the intoxication of evil. No one, then, who is of sound mind, and
teaches the doctrines of Christianity, gets drunk with wine; but Celsus
utters these calumnies against us in a spirit very unlike that of a philosopher.
Moreover, let Celsus say who those "sober" persons are whom the ambassadors
of Christianity accuse. For in our judgment all are intoxicated who address
themselves to inanimate objects as to God. And why do I say "intoxicated?"
"Insane" would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples
and worship images or animals as divinities. And they too are not less
insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and sometimes
most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine divinities. (7)
CHAP. LXXVII.
He next likens our teacher to one suffering from ophthalmia, and his
disciples to those suffering from the same disease, and says that "such
an one amongst a company of those who are afflicted with ophthalmia, accuses
those who are sharp-sighted of being blind." Who, then, would we ask, O
Greeks, are they who in our judgment do not see, save those who are unable
to look up from the exceeding greatness of the world and its contents,
and from the beauty of created things, and to see that they ought to worship,
and admire, and reverence Him alone who made these things, and that it
is not befitting to treat with reverence anything contrived by man, and
applied to the honour of God, whether it be without a reference to the
Creator, or with one? (8) For, to compare with that illimitable excellence,
which surpasses all created being, things which ought not to be brought
into comparison with it, is the act of those whose understanding is darkened.
We do not then say that those who are
495
sharp-sighted are suffering from ophthalmia or blindness; but we assert
that those who, in ignorance of God, give themselves to temples and images,
and so-called sacred seasons, (1) are blinded in their minds, and especially
when, in addition to their impiety, they live also in licentiousness, not
even inquiring after any honourable work whatever, but doing everything
that is of a disgraceful character.
CHAP. LXXVIII.
After having brought against us charges of so serious a kind, he wishes
to make it appear that, although he has others to adduce, he passes them
by in silence. His words are as follows: "These charges I have to bring
against them, and others of a similar nature, not to enumerate them one
by one, and I affirm that they are in error, and that they act insolently
towards God, in order to lead on wicked men by empty hopes, and to persuade
them to despise better things, saying that if they refrain from them it
will be better for them." In answer to which, it might be said that from
the power which shows itself in those who are converted to Christianity,
it is not at all the "wicked" who are won over to the Gospel, as the more
simple class of persons, and, as many would term them, the "unpolished."
(2) For such individuals, through fear of the punishments that are threatened,
which arouses and exhorts them to refrain from those actions which are
followed by punishments, strive to yield themselves up to the Christian
religion, being influenced by the power of the word to such a degree, that
through fear of what are called in the word "everlasting punishments,"
they despise all the tortures which are devised against them among men,--even
death itself, with countless other evils,--which no wise man would say
is the act of persons of wicked mind. How can temperance and sober-mindedness,
or benevolence and liberality, be practised by a man of wicked mind? Nay,
even the fear of God cannot be felt by such an one, with respect to which,
because it is useful to the many, the Gospel encourages those who are not
yet able to choose that which ought to be chosen for its own sake, to select
it as the greatest blessing, and one above all promise; for this principle
cannot be implanted in him who prefers to live in wickedness.
CHAP. LXXIX.
But if in these matters any one were to imagine that it is superstition
rather than wickedness which appears in the multitude of those who believe
the word, and should charge our doctrine with making men superstitious,
we shall answer him by saying that, as a certain legislators replied to
the question of one who asked him whether he had enacted for his citizens
the best laws, that he had not given them absolutely the best, but the
best which they were capable of receiving; so it might be said by the Father
of the Christian doctrine, I have given the best laws and instruction for
the improvement of morals of which the many were capable, not threatening
sinners with imaginary labours and chastisements, but with such as are
real, and necessary to be applied for the correction of those who offer
resistance, although they do not at all understand the object of him who
inflicts the punishment, nor the effect of the labours. For the doctrine
of punishment is both attended with utility, and is agreeable to truth,
and is stated in obscure terms with advantage. (4) Moreover, as for the
most part it is not the wicked whom the ambassadors of Christianity gain
over, neither do we insult God. For we speak regarding Him both what is
true, and what appears to be clear to the multitude, but not so clear to
them as it is to those few who investigate the truths of the Gospel in
a philosophical manner.
CHAP. LXXX.
Seeing, however, that Celsus alleges that "Christians are won over by
us through vain hopes," we thus' reply to him when he finds fault with
our doctrine of the blessed life, and of communion with God: "As for you,
good sir, they also are won over by vain hopes who have accepted the doctrine
of Pythagoras and Plato regarding the soul, that it is its nature to ascend
to the vaults of heaven, and in the super-celestial space to behold the
sights which are seen by the blessed spectators above. According to you,
O Celsus, they also who have accepted the doctrine of the duration of the
soul (after death), and who lead a life through which they become heroes,
and make their abodes with the gods, are won over by vain hopes. Probably
also they who are persuaded that the soul comes (into the body) from without,
and that it will be withdrawn from the power of death, (6) would be said
by Celsus to be won over by empty hopes. Let him then come forth to the
contest, no longer concealing the sect to which he belongs, but
496
confessing himself to be an Epicurean, and let him meet the arguments,
which are not lightly advanced among Greeks and Barbarians, regarding the
immortality of the soul, or its duration (after death), or the immortality
of the thinking principle;, and let him prove that these are words which
deceive with empty hopes those who give their aSsent to them; but that
the adherents of his philosophical system are pure from empty hopes, and
that they indeed lead to hopes of good, or--what is more in keeping with
his opinions--give birth to no hope at all, on account of the immediate
and complete destruction of the soul (after death). Unless, perhaps, Celsus
and the Epicureans will deny that it is a vain hope which they entertain
regarding their end,--pleasure,--which, according to them, is the supreme
good, and which consists in the permanent health of the body, and the hope
regarding it which is entertained by Epicurus. (2)
CHAP. LXXXI.
And do not suppose that it is not in keeping with the Christian religion for me to have accepted, against Celsus, the opinions of those philosophers who have treated of the immortality or after-duration of the soul; for, holding certain views in common with them, we shall more conveniently establish our position, that the future life of blessedness shall be for those only who have accepted the religion which is according to Jesus, and that devotion towards the Creator of all things which is pure and sincere, and un-mingled with any created thing whatever. And let him who likes show what "better things" we persuade men to despise, and let him compare the blessed end with God in Christ,--that is, the word, and the wisdom, and all virtue;-which, according to our view, shall be bestowed,
by the gift of God, on those who have lived a pure and blameless life, and who have felt a single and undivided love for the God of all things, with that end which is to follow according to the teaching of each philosophic sect, whether it be Greek or Barbarian, or according to the professions of religious mysteries; (3) and let him prove that the end which is predicted by any of the others is superior to that which we promise, and consequently that that is true, and ours not befitting the gift of God, nor those who have lived a good life; or let him prove that these words were not spoken by the divine Spirit, who filled the souls of the holy prophets. And let him who likes show that those words which are acknowledged among all men to be human, are superior to those which are proved to be divine, and uttered by inspiration. (4) And what are the "better" things from which we teach those who receive them that it would be better to abstain? For if it be not arrogant so to speak, it is self-evident that nothing can be denied which is better than to entrust oneself to the God of all, and yield oneself up to the doctrine which raises us above all created things, and brings us, through the animate and living word--which is also living wisdom and the Son of God--to God who is over all. However, as the third book of our answers to the treatise of Celsus has extended to a sufficient length, we shall here bring our present remarks to a close, and in what is to follow shall meet what Celsus has subsequently written.