A of the crimes brought against him, he answered nothing, being persuaded that his whole life and his deeds among the Jews were more capable of refuting the false testimony than any words of defense against the charges could be. But you, O lover of God, Ambrose, I know not why you wished me to repel the calumnies and accusations which Celsus has published in writing against the Christians and the faith of the Churches: as if the facts themselves did not openly prove them false, and as if the doctrine, more excellent than any writing, did not destroy them—the doctrine which leaves them not even any probability, so that they might have any force. Now, that Jesus held his peace when false testimonies were spoken against him, will be sufficiently clear for the present from the words of Matthew, to which Mark has written things almost similar. The words of Matthew are these: "Now the chief priests, and the elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; but found none, though many false witnesses came. At the last came two, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus B held his peace." But also, that he answered nothing to those who objected false crimes, these are testimonies: "And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly." C
2. For it was also worthy of admiration, even among those who are able to think with moderation, that he who was falsely accused, and able to defend himself and to show that he was guilty of no crime—who could have recounted the praises and the truly divine virtues of his own life, in order to open to the judge a way to a more equitable judgment—not only did not do these things, but even despised and with a great mind contemned his accusers. For that Jesus would have been acquitted by the judge without delay, if he had said anything to repel the accusations, is clear from those things which Pilate is recorded to have said: "Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" D And from those which immediately follow: "For he knew that for envy they had delivered him." Jesus therefore is always pressed with false testimonies; and because there is always malice in men,
he is always being accused. He is silent indeed even to this day, and makes no answer with his voice, but he is defended by the life of his own genuine disciples. For this is stronger than the perfidy of false witnesses, and refutes and overturns false testimonies and calumnies A.
3. Wherefore, since you ask that a defense be prepared by me, you weaken that defense which consists in things and deeds, and at the same time that power of Jesus which is clearly evident to those who are not insensible. Nevertheless, that I may not seem to shrink from acting upon your command, I have endeavored, according to my present ability, to reply to each of those things which Celsus has written, by suggesting what appears to me B to be a refutation of his arguments, which are unable to shake any of the faithful. And may there never be found anyone who has received such love of God in Christ Jesus, as to be shaken in his own resolve by the words of Celsus or of any man like him! But Paul, though enumerating myriad things accustomed to separate one from the love of Christ and the love of God which is in Christ Jesus—all of which the love that was in him was greater than—did not even count his own speech among things that separate. For pay attention, that first he C says: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we were counted as sheep for the slaughter.) But in all these things we more than conquer through him that loved us." Second, he sets forth another order of those things which are accustomed to separate those who are not steadfast in piety, saying, "For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord D."
And truly it is worthy for us to boast if we are not separated by tribulation, or by the things subsequently recounted with it, but not for Paul and the apostles, and if any other has become like unto them, because he is far above such things, saying, "In all these things we more than conquer through him that loved us," which is greater than to conquer. But if it is necessary for apostles also to boast of not being separated from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, they would boast that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor any one of the things following can separate them from the love of God, which is
in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore, it does not at all please me that one whose faith in Christ could be subverted either by the writings of Celsus, who has long since ceased to live this life and is already long dead, or by any persuasiveness of speech. And I do not know in what category one ought to place him who needs A arguments against those accusations of Celsus against Christians which are written in his books, in order to recover himself from the shaking of his faith and to stand firm in it. Nevertheless, since even in the multitude of those who are considered believers, there might be found some of such a sort that they are shaken and overturned by the writings of Celsus, but are healed by an apology against them—if only the answer contains some character proper to Celsus’s arguments and expressive of the truth—we have thought it right to yield to your command, and to dictate for the work I have sent to you, even if we have made but little progress. This is a work which I do not think anyone who has progressed ever so slightly in philosophy would deem a “True Word,” as Celsus has entitled it.
5. Now Paul, observing that there are in Greek philosophy things not to be despised and which [can appear] persuasive to many, presenting the false as true B, says concerning them: “See that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.” And seeing in the speeches of the wisdom of this world something of a seeming magnificence, he said that the discourses of those philosophers were “according to the elements of this world.” But no one of sound mind would say that the writings of Celsus are “according to the elements of this world.” And those writings of the philosophers, because they bear a deceptive and captious aspect, he called an “empty deceit,” perhaps to distinguish it from a certain deceit that is not empty, which Jeremiah, having observed, dared to say to God: C “You have deceived me, O Lord, and I was deceived; you were stronger than I, and you prevailed.” But the writings of Celsus seem to me to possess no deceit at all, and therefore not even an “empty” one, such as theirs possess who have established sects in philosophy D and have taken upon themselves opinions that are not common. And just as no one would call the casual error of those who are mistaken in geometric theorems a “false-writing,” or a true word, which is why Celsus’s work might not wrongly be translated as a “true history,” or a “true word.”
A and register them for the sake of practice, as coming from such [souls]; thus, it is necessary that things that are to be said in a way similar to the thoughts of those who have introduced heresies in philosophy be called “empty deception and human tradition according to the elements of the world.”
This preface, after dictating everything up to the personification of the Jew in Celsus (88) arguing against Jesus, we thought fit to set before the beginning, so that the reader might encounter it before the things dictated by us concerning Celsus, and see that this book was written not for the fully faithful, but for those who are completely untasted in relation to faith in Christ, or to those whom the Apostle named “weak in the faith.” For he said as follows: “Receive the one who is weak in the faith.” B Let the preface apologize, because we dictated the beginning of the reply to Celsus with one intention, and the parts following the beginning with another. For at first, we intended to note down the heads, and briefly [summarize] the things said against them, and then afterward to give the discourse a bodily form. Later, however, the matters themselves moved us, out of consideration for time, to be content with what had been dictated thus at the beginning, and in the following parts, to the best of our ability, to contend in a literary manner against Celsus’s charges against us. Therefore, we ask for indulgence regarding the beginning of what follows the preface. And if you are not moved by the things subsequently dictated so as to be satisfied, and ask for similar indulgence for them, I send you—if you still wish to have the solutions to Celsus’s arguments dictated for you—to those among us who are more intelligent and capable, who are able through words and books to overturn Celsus’s charges against us. Yet C he is better who has no need even of the beginning, nor of the apology against Celsus upon encountering his writing; but who despises everything in his book, even as any believer in Christ would, because of the Spirit within him, reasonably despises it.
[The text starting from “ὁ ψευδογραφῶν” and the corresponding Latin “captiose decipit...” contains a lengthy discussion quoting Aristotle's *Sophistical Refutations* regarding the nature of the “pseudographer” (the false writer/geometrician) vs. the “contentious” (eristic) person. Origen notes that as a pseudographer is to a geometrician, so is the contentious to the dialectician.]
D [alt-version omitted]
(88) *Celsus*. Thus in the Royal Codex; Julianus, and two Anglicans whose reading seems better than the other, *Celsus*, which is found in other manuscripts and printed books. (89) Codex Reg., *the reply to him* (τῆς πρὸς αὐτὴν), incorrectly.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS, BOOK ONE
A 1. Celsus, wishing to inflame hatred against Christianity because Christians enter into secret pacts with one another contrary to the laws, says this first: that there are some pacts that take place openly, and others secretly; those are permitted by the laws, while these are prohibited by them. He obviously wishes to excite hatred against that which Christians call the "agape," as if it were instituted because of a common danger.
The first point for Celsus, desiring to slander Christianity, is that Christians make clandestine pacts with one another contrary to established customs, because of these pacts some are manifest, those which occur according to the laws, and others are hidden, those which are accomplished against established customs. And he wishes to slander the so-called "love-feast" of the Christians.
B Three charges are cast against us: impiety, Thyestean feasts, and Oedipean copulations. The fourth the author mentions here is sedition. Celsus noted all these things. But to these and the rest of the crimes, by which the Christian religion seemed to be suppressed, the Fathers respond: and they repel the first charge offered by the unbelievers. Justin, *Second Apology*, and elsewhere; Athenagoras, *Supplication for the Christians*, page 5; Tertullian very often in the *Apologeticus*.
Concerning the second charge, Justin, *First Apology*: "For I myself," he says, "delighting in the teachings of Plato, hearing that Christians are slandered, and seeing that they are fearless in the face of death and all other things considered terrible, considered it impossible that they could exist in vice and lust. For who that is a lover of pleasure and intemperate, and considering the eating of human flesh a good, could be able to embrace death, so that he might be deprived of his own goods, and not rather by every means strive to live this present life always, and to escape notice of the rulers, let alone offer himself to be struck down by denunciation and information?"
... we abstain from blood, so that we may not be contaminated by any blood, or by that which is buried within the vitals. Finally, among the trials of the Christians, you bring forward sausages bloated with gore, well-knowing that to be illicit among them, for which you wish them to stumble. But what kind of thing is it, that those who you believe shudder at the blood of an animal, you would believe to pant for human blood? Unless, perhaps, you have experienced it to be sweeter. The same, chapter 7: We are called the most wicked because of the sacrament of infanticide and the food from it, and after the feast, for incest; because dogs, the overthrowers of lamps, procure darkness, and then the shamelessness of impious lusts. We are always spoken of, yet you do not care to ferret out that which has been spoken of for so long; therefore, either ferret it out, if you believe it, or do not believe it, you who have not ferreted it out. By your own dissimulation it is prescribed to you that it is not, because you yourselves dare not ferret it out. And Minucius Felix in the *Octavius*: "For us, murder is neither lawful to see nor to hear; and we abstain so much from human blood, that we do not know the blood of edible animals in our food."
The third charge, Minucius Felix again: "A great fable of demons has lied against us concerning the incestuous feast, so that it might stain the glory of modesty with the aversion of a shameful infamy." Likewise Justin, who in his *Second Apology* rejects the aforementioned crimes on the disciples of Simon, Menander, and Marcion; and he opines that they gave the gentiles cause for suspicion.
C Even if they do those things which are told in those defamatory myths—the overthrow of lamps, and promiscuous copulation, and the eating of human flesh—we do not know. But we know that they are not persecuted, and not killed by you, and [we know] that it is because of their doctrines.
We also have a work compiled against all the heresies that have existed, which, if you wish to read, we will provide. Some pagan slaves of ours were also arrested (since the governor publicly ordered all of us to be sought out); who, also according to the snare of Satan, D and because they feared the tortures they saw Christians suffering, and were urged by those who were pursuing us to falsely accuse us of eating human flesh and of incestuous copulation, denounced these things against us.
A Since, therefore, he harps on the common law, and says that the covenants of the Christians violate it, we must reply that, just as if someone who found himself among the Scythians—who use wicked laws—and had no opportunity to leave, were constrained to live among them, he would rightly, for the sake of the law of truth, which they deem wicked, enter into covenants with those who thought as he did, against the laws of the Scythians; so, before the truth as judge, those laws of the nations which sanction the cult of images and, by introducing a multitude of gods, remove God from the midst, are Scythian laws, or—if anything is more impious than the laws of the Scythians—those. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to make covenants contrary to what is established, for the sake of the truth. For just as if some were to secretly enter into covenants to remove a tyrant who had occupied the things of the city, they would be acting rightly; so too the Christians, when the devil and falsehood are exercising tyranny among them, rightly make covenants contrary to the things established by the devil, against the devil himself, and for the salvation of others, whom they can persuade to depart from what is, so to speak, the law of the Scythians and of the tyrant.
B Certain of our servants who were Gentiles were also captured, since the governor had publicly ordered that we all be searched for. Urged on by the impulse of the demon, as they dreaded the tortures they saw the saints enduring, and with the soldiers inciting them to this very thing, they falsely accused us of Thyestean feasts and Oedipean unions, and of whatever it is not holy for us even to speak or to think, nor even to believe that such a thing ever happened among men. When these things were bruited about, everyone became savage toward us, so that even if some had previously been lenient toward us on account of kinship, they then became greatly enraged and gnashed their teeth against us.
C Christians have given the kiss; Justin, *Apol.* 2, p. 97; nay, they have called each other brothers and sisters; Tertullian, *Apolog.* cap. 39; Athenagoras, *Legat.*; Clement, *Strom.* v; and from this perhaps the pagans seized an opportunity for calumny. Are you surprised? I will tell you. If any Christians have sinned gravely, the presidents of the Church used to expel them; the latter, moved by grief, beg for pardon, and throw themselves before the knees of the brethren and the feet of the priests; hence phrases of this kind occur here and there in ecclesiastical authors: "to throw oneself before the presbyters," and "by throwing oneself, to wipe the boots of the brethren." Such was the discipline of the ancient Christians; which, however, Caecilius, in Minucius, having seized an opportunity from this bodily gesture, thus slandered: "Others," he says, "report that they worship the genitals of the priest and minister himself." D See Rigaltius on this passage of Minucius.
"This gathering of Christians is surely deservedly illicit, if it is on a par with illicit things; it is deservedly to be condemned, if it is not unlike those that are condemned, if anyone complains of it under the title under which complaint is made against factions. To whose ruin have we ever gathered? We are the same when gathered as we are when dispersed; we are the same as a whole as we are individually; harming no one, saddening no one." When the upright, when the good gather, when the pious, when the chaste congregate, it is not to be called a faction, but a curia (court/assembly). The same, cap. 39: "Looking up to that, Christians, with hands outstretched, because we are innocent, with heads bare, because we do not blush, finally without a prompter, because we pray from the heart, we are always praying for all the emperors; for them a long life, a secure empire, a safe home, brave armies, a faithful senate, an upright people, a peaceful world, whatever are the wishes of a man and a Caesar." Likewise Justin, *Apol.* 1, p. 64.
A Next, he calls the doctrine from of old "barbarian," clearly meaning Judaism, from which Christianity is derived. And he is quite fair-minded, for he does not reproach the Word for its barbarian origin, praising the barbarians as capable of discovering truths. He adds to this that the Greeks are better at judging, confirming, and practicing for the sake of virtue what the barbarians discovered. This, then, represents for us, from his own words, a defense of the truths contained in Christianity: that if someone, having been thoroughly trained in the learning and exercises of the Greeks, were to come to the Word, he would not only judge them to be true, but would also, by practicing them, confirm them, and—as it might seem to lack something in comparison to Greek demonstration—supply the deficiency, thereby establishing the truth of Christianity. B We must also say to this, however, that there is a certain demonstration unique to the Word, which is more divine than the Greek dialectic. This more divine demonstration the Apostle calls "a demonstration of the Spirit and of power" [7 Cor. II, 4]: "of the Spirit" because of the prophecies that are capable of convincing the reader, especially concerning the things of Christ; "of power" because of the prodigious miracles, the reality of which must be established not only by many other things, but also by the fact that their traces still survive among those who live according to the will of the Word.
C And now you can learn from the things that are happening before your eyes. For many throughout the whole world, and in your own city, have had demons cast out of them by many of our own people—the Christians—invoking the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, in cases where all other exorcists, incantators, and sorcerers had failed; and they are still healing them today, disarming and driving out the demons that possess D people. [alt-version omitted]
...has been delivered when being thrown down by a demon; and a kinsman or a little child of some people. And how many honest men (for we do not speak of the common sort) have been healed from demons or from illnesses? Even Severus himself, the father of Antoninus, was mindful of the Christians; for he sought out Proculus the Christian, who was nicknamed Torpacion, the procurator of Evodia, who had once healed him with oil, and kept him in his palace until his death. The same in the *Apologeticus*, ch. 25: "But so much for words; now for the demonstration of the fact itself, by which we will show that there is one nature to both names [of God or demon]. Let there be brought forward here someone before your tribunals who is clearly possessed by a demon: mandated by any Christian to speak, that spirit will confess itself to be a demon as truthfully as it would else confess it is a god falsely. Equally, let there be brought forward any of those who are thought to suffer from a god, who, inhaling the fumes at the altars, conceive a spirit from the scent, who are cured by belching, who speak out while gasping; this very celestial virgin, the foreteller of rain, this very Aesculapius, the teacher of medicine, who on another day provides life to the dying Socordius and Thannatius and Asclepiodotus—unless they confess themselves to be demons, not daring to lie to a Christian, do you shed the blood of that most insolent Christian. What is more manifest than this work? What is more faithful than this proof? The simplicity of truth is in your midst; its own power assists it; it will not be possible to suspect anything. You will say that it is magic or some such deception, if your eyes and ears allow you. But what can be cast against that which is shown with naked sincerity?" See also the twenty-seventh chapter. Irenaeus also says, book II, ch. 31, Benedictine edition: "So far are they from resurrecting the dead, as the Lord resurrected and the Apostles did through prayer, and in the brotherhood, very often for some necessary purpose, the whole Church in each place requesting it through fasting and much supplication, that the spirit has returned to the dead man, and the man has been granted [to us] through [their] orisons."
A 3223. After he has said that the Christians do whatever they like and teach it in secret, and that they do not do this in vain, since they are avoiding the death penalty hanging over them—a danger equal to the dangers that befell the philosophers, such as Socrates—he could have added that they took for themselves the name "Christian" so that, off account of them, the nations might be repulsed from the utility of the holy Church of God and might reject the announced truth because of their enormous crimes and incredible wickedness; that, I say, having observed their frequent villainies, they might persuade themselves that those who are from the holy Church of God are the same, and thus might turn their ears away from the most true doctrine of God, as we have said, or at any rate, having seen the wickedness of a few, might throw the same insults at all. And that is the very reason why most of the Gentiles, wherever they catch men of this sect, do not wish either to join with us in any exchange or counsel or B to hear the divine word, and cannot even endure to provide their ears, being so dismayed and deterred by their nefarious crimes.
CONCERNING THE WONDER-WORKERS
And Irenaeus teaches this, lib. 1, cap. 22. Secondly, very many have called into doubt the truthfulness of Christ and the apostles, and have believed them to be most skilled in magical arts; for the refutation of whom a long series of miracles seemed very necessary. Celsus slanders not once that Christ learned the art of magic from the Egyptians. The Jews and Simon the Samaritan, the father and master of all heretics, if you believe Irenaeus, lib. 1, cap. 34, suspected the same; and the defenders of heresy and the Gentile cult asserted it with all their might. "But if they also say that the Lord performed such things through phantasms, by reducing them to the prophetic writings we shall demonstrate from them, etc.," Irenaeus, lib. 1, cap. 24. "Wherefore [they say that] he did not suffer, but that a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry his cross for him, C and that this man, being crucified in ignorance and by mistake, was transformed by him so that he would be thought to be Jesus himself, while Jesus himself took the shape of Simon and, standing by, mocked them." Iren. lib. 1, cap. 20; likewise Epiphanius, haer. 24.
Concerning the rest of the enemies of the Christian religion, you may form a conjecture from Julian alone, whom you may hear, in Cyril of Alexandria the sixth book, belittling the miracles of Christ in his own manner: "Jesus, however, having persuaded a few of your own people and the most wretched among them, is celebrated for about three hundred years. During this whole time of his life, he did nothing at all worthy of mention; unless someone regards it as a great feat to cure the lame and the blind, and to exorcise those possessed by demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany." What he thought of Paul, you have in the third book: "But also Paul, who surpasses all the incantators and deceivers that have ever existed." Likewise concerning Peter, in the ninth book; concerning all of them, in the tenth book: "But also your apostles, it is credible that after the death of their master they did those things, and that you who first believed D handed them down to yourselves from the beginning, having yourselves practiced the trickery more skillfully, and then displayed to those after you the workshops of this trickery and filth."
A Socrates (3): he was able to say that, just like Pythagoras (4) and other philosophers. We must say to this, that the Athenians repented immediately regarding Socrates, and nothing bitter remained for them concerning him, nor C regarding Pythagoras (5). Plutarch, in *On the Malice of Herodotus*: "To compare such misfortunes of good and noble men—such as the condemnation of Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras while still alive by the Cylonians, the executions of Zeno by the tyrant Demylus and of Antiphon by Dionysius while they were being tortured—to falling husks is of such levity that I refrain from speaking of it." Laertius and Suidas mention this in *Pythagoras*, as does Arnobius, Book 1, *Against the Gentiles*; Athenagoras likewise in his *Plea for the Christians*; also Plutarch in his book *On the Sign of Socrates*. But Suidas and Laertius report, on the authority of others, that he emerged from the house unharmed before it could be set on fire; however, it came to pass that, while fleeing, he crossed a field full of beans, where, having stopped for the sake of religion, he was caught by his pursuers and slaughtered. Others report that he died due to a faction in Metapontum, as Porphyry does in his *Life of Pythagoras*. Others report that, after the house where they often gathered was consumed by fire, he escaped, having made a bridge out of the bodies of his disciples; but when he saw himself bereft of them, he was so overwhelmed by grief that he took his own life. Laertius, following Hermippus, reports that he brought aid to the Agrigentines; but that he, after the rest had turned to flight, was slaughtered in the plain of the beans, which he was circling (Laert. in *Pythagoras*). You have more on his perils in Porphyry's book *On the Life of Pythagoras*, as well as in Suidas and Laertius; and also in Iamblichus, ch. 35, 36. SPENCER. D Athenians immediately repented, to the point that they closed both the wrestling schools and the gymnasia; they sent some into exile, and condemned Meletus to death. They honored Socrates with a bronze statue, which they placed in the Pompeion—Lysippus having made it. Anytus, who was away at the time, was exiled by the Heracleotes on that very day.
A A Pythagorean school had long existed in that part of Italy which was called Magna Graecia; but as regards the Christians, the Roman Senate, the emperors of various times, the soldiers, the populace, and even the parents of those who believed, conspired against their doctrine; so that, had the Church not been sustained by divine power, it would undoubtedly have been crushed by such manifold snares of enemies from all sides; not only would it have failed to escape and emerge, but it would have been conquered by the whole world which had conspired against it.
Let us also see how he thinks he can disparage the moral teaching, on the grounds that it is common to other philosophers and is no noble or new learning. To this it must be replied that for those who introduce the righteous judgment of God, the penalty for sins would be closed off, if all men did not have a sound preconception of the moral realm imprinted on their minds according to common notions. Therefore, it is no wonder that the same God, B who taught these things through the prophets and the Word, has also imprinted these things on the souls of all men; so that every man might be without excuse in the divine judgment, having the work of the law written in his heart, his conscience also bearing witness and his thoughts one with another accusing or even excusing him. C
(6) *On the Pythagoreans.* Strabo in book IX and Polybius in Book II of his Histories mention the sedition that arose among the Pythagoreans and the Italici. That they repented is clear from Iamblichus, ch. 55, *De vita Pythagorae*: "After many years had passed, when Dinarchus had been killed in another battle with his men, and Litagus, who was the foremost of the seditious, had been extinguished, pity and repentance came upon the citizens, so that they judged that the remaining Pythagoreans should be recalled to their homeland; and so they sought out ambassadors from Achaea, through whom they made peace with the exiles, and they consecrated their oaths at Delphi. The number of those who returned was about sixty, excluding those who were decrepit with age: among whom were found some who devoted themselves to medicine, and cured the sick with a certain regimen of diet; that is, by the method of which they themselves had been the first authors. And it happened that all were finally restored to the same homeland: and this was chiefly through those who had been restored to health, at the time when they were being sung against by the wicked." D SPENCER.
(7) *Which was called Magna Graecia.* Cicero, lib. I, *Tusc.*: "When Pythagoras had come to Italy in the reign of Tarquin the Proud, he held that Magna Graecia in honor for his discipline, and also for his authority; and for many centuries thereafter the name of the Pythagoreans flourished, so that no others seemed learned." Regarding the boundaries by which that Magna Graecia was contained, see Cellarius, *Geographia antiqua*, lib. I, cap. 9.
(8) *Had not divine power, etc.* It seemed to the writer that it should be: *nor had divine power risen and ascended so that it was conquered*. But the received text is sound, and does not need an emendation of that kind.
Nor is it any wonder that God, who taught through the prophets and the Saviour, has impressed the same [truths] upon the souls of all men, so that when God judges, no man may be able to use an excuse; since there is no one who does not have “the sense of the law written in his heart” (Rom. ii, 15). And the Scriptures indicate this obscurely, where they narrate what the Greeks wish to be a fable: that God delivered the commandments written by His own finger to Moses, and that they were broken because of the malice of those who had fashioned the calf (Exod. xxxii, 19); as if to say that they had been obliterated by the flood of their sins. But God, having written them a second time, again gave [them] after Moses had hewn the stones, as if the prophetic word were preparing the soul, after the first sin, with the second letters of God.
B 5. That the Christians have specific views on idolatry, Origen himself explains and confirms, saying that they do not consider manufactured objects to be gods, because it is alien to right reason to count in the number of the gods the works of wicked men, of men with ruined characters, and often even of unjust craftsmen. Then, to show that this opinion is not peculiar to Christians or invented by them, he brings forward the words of Heraclitus, who says: “He who approaches inanimate things as if they were gods, does exactly the same as if someone were to converse with walls.” But these things, as well as others that pertain to ethics, teach us of the notions inherent in the minds of men. From this, Heraclitus—or whoever else among the Greeks or barbarians thought to prove the same thing—drew his own: for he affirms, on the authority of Herodotus, that the Persians also held this same view. To this I add Zeno the Cittiean, who says in his book *On the Republic*: “There will be no need to build shrines. For nothing is sacred, nothing of any value, C statues, nor temples, nor altars are they accustomed to erect. Nay, they even attribute madness to those who do so, for the reason (as is my opinion) that they do not, like the Greeks, think that the gods were born from men.” [Regarding these matters, Herodotus speaks in his *Clio*, and Strabo, in book xv.]
On Idolatry
D As for me, by the Dog, I would have preferred that the disjointed and obscene parts of Zeno’s arguments at some banquet or in jest had been set down in the *Republic*, rather than that they should have been placed in a work of such great seriousness. But this decree of his is recorded by Plutarch in his book *On Stoic Self-Contradictions*. And with a few words changed, you will find it in Theodoret, sermon 3, and in Clement of Alexandria, book v of the *Stromata*. Akin to this is that passage of Plato, book xii of the *Laws*, page 955: “It is fitting that a man of moderate means should offer moderate gifts as votive offerings to the gods. For the earth, to all, is the sacred hearth of the dwelling of all the gods. Let no one, then, dedicate holy things to the gods a second time. Gold and silver in other cities, both privately and in temples, are a possession that arouses envy. Ivory [is not an] easy offering, for it has left the soul of the body; nor is iron or bronze [easy], for they are instruments of war. Of wood, let one dedicate whatever he wishes from a single piece, and of stone, likewise, for common...
A It is manifest, therefore, that concerning this dogma also, it is written in the hearts of men by the finger of God what ought to be done.
6. After this, I know not what moves Celsus to say that the Christians seem to have power through the names of certain demons and incantations—pointing, I suppose, to those who exorcise and cast out demons. But he clearly seems to calumniate the Word. For they do not appear to have power through incantations, but rather by the name of Jesus, along with the recitation of the narratives pertaining to him; for these things, when frequently spoken, have caused demons to depart from people, especially when those who speak them do so from a sound disposition and with a sincerely believing heart. B Indeed, the name of Jesus 18 has such power against demons that it sometimes proves effective even when pronounced by unworthy persons; which Jesus himself, teaching us, said: "Many will say to me in that day: In your name we cast out demons, and did wonders." 81 I know not whether Celsus deliberately overlooked this and acts maliciously, or if he is simply ignorant of it. Furthermore, he accuses the Savior himself, as if he did those things which he appeared to do by magical arts; and because he foresaw that others would come who, having learned these same arts, would do the same, he...
C ...but that he did not entirely forbid the making of images among the Athenians, fearing the populace, is easy to learn from this same source. First, he forbade anyone to construct images of the gods privately; then, he cast out gold and silver as envy-inducing materials that incite to sacrilege. He called ivory a difficult material; and he said that bronze and iron should be reserved for war, not for the making of images of the gods. He ordered them to be carved from wood and stone alone, knowing, I suppose, that this material is worthy of contempt and sufficient to persuade those who see it not to consider them divine, nor to worship things so cheap and base.
D "But mortals think that gods are born, and have sensing, and voice, and body like us. But if oxen or elephants had hands, or were able to draw with their hands, and to perform works as men do, oxen would draw the likenesses of gods, and make bodies like those which they themselves possessed. Horses would draw them like horses, oxen like oxen."
E ...sculpted from wood and stone alone, knowing, I suppose, that the material is subject to contempt, and that it would easily persuade those who see it not to hold them for gods, and to worship things so vile and of no value. This conjecture of a most learned man, if it were my place, I could confirm with countless arguments which the diligent reading of Plato would supply; but another passage—an elegant poem of Xenophanes of Colophon—calls out to me:
"But mortal men imagine gods are generated, And that they have equal sensation, and voice, and body as we do."
Following from the same:
"If bulls or elephants could use their hands, To paint with their hands, or to record deeds as men do, Then horses would see gods drawn like horses, and bulls like bulls, And they would make the bodies of the gods Just like the bodies that they themselves possessed."
Numa, imitating Moses, brought in a similar law, as Clemens Alexandrinus reports in *Stromata*, book 1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch agree with this, who gave the same reason for the law being introduced. See Eusebius, *Praeparatio Evangelica*, book 3, chapter 8, and from Plutarch, likewise, book 1, chapter 9. The rest of the testimonies of the ancients, which pertain to this place, I would have gladly added, had I not found them collected with great diligence by the most distinguished Grotius in his *Explanation of the Decalogue*. SPENCER.
A and that they should boast themselves to have done by divine power what he forbade them to do in his company; for if he justly rejects others, he is wicked, being guilty of the same crimes; or if, while he does these things, he is beyond blame, then those who do the same things are also free from blame. However, although the power by which Jesus did these things could not be demonstrated, it is nevertheless evident that no art of incantation is employed by the Christians, but rather the name of Jesus and certain other words, which the divine Scriptures teach are to be believed.
7. But since in what follows he often calls our doctrine secret, he must be confuted in this point also, seeing that it is more known to the whole world than the very tenets of the philosophers. For whom does it escape that Jesus was born of a Virgin, and was nailed to the cross, and—as so many men already believe—that he rose from the dead, and that a judgment will come, in which the unjust ought to be afflicted with fitting punishments, and the just with fitting rewards? And is not the mystery of the resurrection even in the mouths of the unfaithful, to whom it is a mockery, because they do not understand it? After this, he would surely be foolish who would say that our doctrine is hidden. But that there are certain more recondite things, not revealed to all, is a point that Christian doctrine has in common with philosophy, in which there are certain exterior things, and certain others that are interior. For B to some of the disciples of Pythagoras it was sufficient to say, "He himself said it," while others were taught in secret those things which it was not safe to disclose to profane and unpurged ears. C And they were not to busy themselves with inquiries as doubters.
To such an extent did those who succeeded him, if anyone asked for a proof of the things being said, use to reply, "He himself said it," considering it stronger than any proof, and commanding that the voice of Pythagoras be held to the same effect. And if they considered that sufficient for faith, both the speakers and the hearers, when they knew that these were the doctrines and institutions of Pythagoras, who is so foolish, or rather so thunderstruck, as to doubt when God of all things is the teacher, and not to believe the things spoken, and not to accord as much reverence to the God of all things as those who had addicted themselves to his teaching accorded to Pythagoras? D Not without reason, therefore, the beginnings of the mysteries among the Greeks are the purifications, just as the washing is to the barbarians; after these are the small mysteries, having some subject of instruction.
A Yet not even those mysteries everywhere, among Greeks and barbarians alike, which are secret, are to be blamed; therefore, because he has not even understood the secret of Christianity accurately, he speaks against it in vain.
But he seems to speak with some astuteness in favor of those who bear witness to Christianity even unto death, saying: « And I do not say this, that one who holds to a good doctrine, if he is to be in danger among men on its account, ought to depart from the doctrine, or pretend that he has departed, or deny it. » And he indeed condemns those who think the things of Christianity [(24)], yet pretend not to think them, or deny them, saying: « It is not right for one in the doctrine to pretend that he has departed from it, or to deny it. » B Celsus must therefore be refuted as saying things contrary to himself. For he is found from other writings to be an Epicurean; yet here, because it seems more plausible to accuse the [Christian] teaching, while not admitting the things of Epicurus, he pretends that there is something in man superior to the earthly and akin to God, and says that « those for whom this is well, that is, the soul, are in every way longing for the akin [(25)], »—meaning [the akin] of God—« and are always desiring to hear and be reminded of him. » See, then, the insincerity of his soul, that having previously said, « as it is necessary for one who holds to a good doctrine, even if he is to be in danger among men on its account, not to depart from the doctrine, nor to pretend that he has departed, nor to deny it, » he himself falls into all the opposites. For he knew that, by admitting he was an Epicurean, he would not have credibility in accusing those who in any way introduce providence and set God over the things that exist. We have received that there were two Celsuses who were Epicureans; the former lived under Nero, but this one under Hadrian and later.
C It is not without reason, therefore, that in the mysteries also which are celebrated among the Greeks, the first place is held by the expiations and purifications, just as the washing is to the barbarians. After these, however, are the small mysteries, which have some foundation of doctrine and preparation for future things. But in the great mysteries, about the universe, it remains no longer to learn, but to behold and to contemplate both nature and the things themselves. « For it is not permitted for the impure to touch the pure. » Observe him looking around, lest any of the uninitiated overhear. These are they who think nothing to exist other than what they can grasp with their own hands, D saying that to the uninitiated the mysteries are impious.
A Following this, he exhorts us to follow reason and a rational guide, and to accept dogmas; for one who does not thus yield assent to certain things is entirely subject to deceit. He likens those who believe irrationally to the Metragyrtae, B to those who observe omens, to the followers of Mithras and Sabazius, and to anyone who has encountered the phantasms of Hecate or of some other demon or demons. For just as wicked men among them often take advantage of the ignorance 50 of the easily deceived and lead them wherever they wish, so he says this also happens among Christians. C He says that "some of them, not even wishing to give or receive an account for what they believe, use the saying, 'Do not examine, but believe,' and, 'Your faith will save you.'" And he says that they declare: "The wisdom in life is an evil, but foolishness is a good." D To this it must be said that, if it were possible for all men to leave behind their worldly affairs and devote themselves to philosophy, no other path should be pursued by anyone but this one alone; for there will be found, even within Christianity, no less an examination of those things which are believed — indeed, if I may speak somewhat boldly, an examination of the enigmas in the prophets, and of the parables in the Gospels, and of…
ten thousand other things which were done or ordained symbolically. If this is impossible, partly because of the necessities of life, and partly because of the infirmity of men, since very few apply themselves to the study of the word, what other method better adapted to help the multitude could be found than that which was delivered by Jesus to the nations? B And we may inquire with regard to the multitude of those who believe, who have put away the abundant overflow of the vice in which they formerly wallowed, whether it is better for them to have believed without rational argument and somehow to have had their characters restrained and made better by the faith concerning those who are punished for sins and rewarded for good works, or not to have accepted their conversion through simple faith until they had given themselves to the examination of arguments. For clearly, all but a very few would have obtained nothing of that which they have received through simply having believed, but would have remained in the wickedest of lives. Indeed, if another argument is needed to prove that the philanthropic word did not come to the life of men without God, this too must be reckoned to their account. For no pious person would think that even the physician of bodies, who has brought many who were suffering to a better state, has come to cities and nations without the providence of God; for nothing good happens among men without God. If, then, he who has healed many bodies, or has brought them to a better state, does not heal without divine help, how much more ought one to say this of him who has healed many souls, C and converted them, and made them better, and attached them to the God who is over all, and taught them to refer every action to His pleasure, and to shun everything that is displeasing to God, even to the very least of things spoken, or done, or even coming into thought.
Then, since they hold forth on the subject of faith, it must be said that we, indeed, accepting it as useful for the multitude, confess that we teach those who are unable to abandon all things and follow the examination of the word to believe even without rational argument; but they, while not confessing this, do it in their actions. For who, having been prompted toward philosophy D and having cast himself by lot onto some sect of philosophers, or because he happened upon such a teacher, approaches this in any other way than by believing that that sect is better? For he has not waited to hear the arguments of all the philosophers, and of the various sects, and the refutation of which they were able to judge as the best. Then, in the weakest period of life, either having complied with some friend or having been captivated by the discourse of the one whom they first heard, they judge of matters unknown, and, as if carried by a tempest to whatever discipline they arrive at, they cling to it as if to a rock.
A Indeed, one chooses to be a Stoic, or a Platonist, or a Peripatetic, or an Epicurean, or of whatever philosophical sect it may be; but by some irrational impulse, even if they do not wish to admit this, he comes—to use an example—to practice the Stoic discourse, having abandoned the others. Or, having looked down upon the Platonist one as being more lowly than the others, or the Peripatetic one as being too human, and one that candidly acknowledges human goods more than the other sects. And some, from the very first encounter, being disturbed by the discourse concerning Providence, by what happens here to the good and the wicked, have too precipitately agreed that there is no Providence at all, and have chosen the discourse of Epicurus and Celsus.
B If, therefore, one must believe, as the discourse has taught, in one of those who have introduced sects among the Greeks or barbarians, how much more so in the God over all, and in the one who teaches that He alone 45 ought to be worshipped, while other things—either as not existing or as existing—are worthy of honor, yet not of worship and adoration, ought to be disregarded? Concerning these matters, he who does not only believe, but also contemplates things by reason, will bring forward the demonstrations that have occurred to him and have been found through careful investigation. How, then, is it not more consonant with reason to believe in God, since all human affairs depend upon faith? For who sails, or marries, or begets children, or casts seeds upon the earth, without believing 44 that better things will happen, although it is possible for the contrary to occur, as it sometimes does? But nonetheless, that faith that better things and those things prayed for will happen, makes all men bold, and leads them to venture even upon uncertain matters and those with doubtful outcomes. But if, in every action whose outcome is uncertain, hope and the better faith regarding the future sustain life, why should this faith not be adopted more reasonably by him who believes in God, the Creator of all those things, and in the one who, in order to reveal this doctrine to all mortals everywhere, underwent the greatest perils with an C excellence of mind and divine greatness of soul, and for the sake of humanity suffered a death deemed ignominious by the multitude, and taught those whom he persuaded at the beginning to be ministers of his doctrine, D with all the dangers and the deaths that were ever-awaited?
A
Next, Celsus says in these very words: "If indeed they wish to answer me, not as if I were seeking to learn what they think—for I know all things—but because I care equally for all, it were well; but if they do not wish to, but will say, as they are accustomed, 'Do not inquire,' and the rest, it is necessary for them, he says, to teach what kind of things these are which they assert, and whence they have flowed," and the rest. B To this, "For I know all things," I must say that it is a most arrogant thing to have been dared by him; for if he had particularly read the prophets, who are filled with acknowledged enigmas and words obscure to the many; and if he had encountered the evangelical parables, and the rest of the law, and the writing of Jewish history, and the voices of the apostles; and after reading them, had wished with an honest mind to enter into the meaning of the words, he would not have been so bold, nor have said, "For I know all things." Not even we, C who have spent our time in these matters, would say, "For I know all things," for truth is dear. None of us will say, "I know all things," of Epicurus, or will dare to say that he knows all the things of Plato, since there are so many disagreements even among those who interpret them. For who is so bold as to say, "I know all the Stoic things," or "all the Peripatetic things"? Unless perhaps, having heard "For I know all things" from certain senseless, uneducated people who do not perceive their own ignorance, he thought, having used such teachers, that he had known all things. D And it seems to me that he has done something of this kind: just as if one having traveled in Egypt, where the wise men of the Egyptians philosophize much according to their ancestral letters about the divine things customary among them, but the uneducated, having heard some myths of which they do not understand the arguments, plume themselves greatly on these, he thought he had known all the things of the Egyptians, having been a pupil of their uneducated ones, and having met with none of the priests, nor having learned from any of them the hidden things of the Egyptians. And what I have said about the wise men and the uneducated of the Egyptians, it is possible to say also about the Persians, among whom there are mysteries, practiced reasonably by those among them who are learned, but becoming symbolic among the many and more superficial ones among them. The same must also be said about the Syrians, and the Indians, and as many as have both myths and writings.
A 13. But since Celsus sets forth what is alleged by many Christians: "Wisdom in this life is a bad thing, but foolishness is a good thing," it must be said that he slanders the Word, not setting forth the very passage that is in Paul, which says: "If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool, that he may become wise; for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." Therefore, the Apostle does not say simply, "Wisdom is foolishness with God," but, "The wisdom of this world." And again, he does not say, if any one among you thinks he is wise, let him become a fool, but, "in this age let him become a fool, that he may become wise." We call the wisdom of this age, according to the Scriptures, all philosophy that is full of false opinions and which is rendered useless and superfluous. B Nor do we call foolishness simply good; but we call it so when someone becomes a fool to this age—in the same sense as if we were to say that the Platonist, believing in the immortality of the soul and the things said about it regarding transmigration, has adopted a "foolishness" in relation to the Stoics, who hiss at these dogmas; and in relation to the Peripatetics, who mock the subtleties of Plato; and in relation to the Epicureans, who impute superstition to those who introduce providence and set God over all things. Furthermore, that it is far better, according to that which pleases the Word, to accept dogmas with reason and wisdom than by simple faith alone; and that God the Word wished for this in certain circumstances, so that He might not leave men entirely unhelped, is declared by the genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, when he says: "For since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe." From these things it is clear that God should have been known in the wisdom of God. And since this did not happen so, God secondly pleased to save those who believe, not simply through foolishness, but through the foolishness of the preaching. For that Jesus Christ is preached crucified, this is THE foolishness of the preaching, just as Paul, understanding this, says: "But we preach Jesus Christ, and him crucified; to the Jews indeed a scandal, but to the Greeks foolishness; but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
D 14. Since Celsus supposes that there is a certain kinship of this same doctrine among many of the nations, he names them all.
A I do not know, however, why he should do an injury to the Jews alone, by not ranking their nation with the others, whether on account of their studies, or their opinions, or the similarity of many of their doctrines. I would gladly ask him why he attaches credibility to the histories of the barbarians and Greeks whom he explicitly named concerning their antiquity, but rejects the histories of this nation as fabulous. For if each of them has set forth with love of truth those things which concerned themselves, why should we withhold belief from the prophets of the Jews alone? But if Moses and the prophets, in writing of Jewish affairs, favored their own nation more than was just, why shall we not say that the same thing was done by the writers of those other nations? Do the Egyptians deserve belief when, in their own histories, they assail the Jews with injuries, while when the Jews write that they themselves suffered many things unjustly from the Egyptians, and for that reason say that they were punished by God, they are lying? Nor must this be said of the Egyptians alone, but also of the Assyrians. For B just as their ancient historians narrate what battles they waged with the Jews, so too do the Jewish writers record that the Assyrians were their enemies—I do not say "prophets," lest I should seem to beg the question, but "writers." See, then, how immediately Celsus indulges his own self-love in believing some people, as being wise nations, while condemning others as utterly devoid of common sense. For hear Celsus saying: "There is," he says, "an ancient doctrine, from the beginning, on which indeed the wisest nations, cities, and wise men have always agreed"; yet he did not wish to call the Jews a most wise nation, nor even to rank them in this matter C with the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Indians, the Persians, the Odrysians, the Samothracians, and the Eleusinians.
How much better, however, is Numenius the Pythagorean, who by many arguments has shown himself to be most learned, and who has scrutinized many doctrines and gathered from many sources what he imagined to be true. 15. The Pythagorean Numenius, who, in the first book of his *On the Good*, speaking of the matters of the Jews...
Flavius Josephus from Berosus in the work Against Apion:
"...Nabuchodonosor, however, not long after having learned of his father's death, and having settled matters concerning Egypt and the rest of the country, and having entrusted the captives of the Jews, the Phoenicians, and the D Syrians, who had been in Egypt, to certain of his friends to bring to Babylonia with the army and their equipment, he himself set out with a small retinue and arrived in Babylon by way of the desert."ex multis collegit quæ vera sibi visa sunt. Is A in libro primo quem inscripsit *De bono*, loquens de gentibus quæ Deum incorporeum esse judicabant, illis et Judæos annumeravit: quin eum non piguit in hoc suo opere propheticis uti sermonibus, eosque ad figuras deflectere. Fertur ei Hermippus.
72. The Pythagorean Numenius, who, in his first book *On the Good*, speaking of the nations that judged God to be incorporeal, included the Jews among them; nor was he ashamed in this work of his to use prophetic sayings, and to allegorize them. It is said that also Hermippus (73) remembers him. Eusebius mentions him in *Evangelical Preparation*, Bk. IX, ch. 7; and Bk. XV, ch. 17; also the second, Bk. XI, ch. 9; the third, Bk. IX, ch. 8; and even the sixth in these words, *ibid.*; Bk. XI, ch. 18, and elsewhere, being little concerned with the number of the books, he cites him indiscriminately, Bk. XI, ch. 17, 21. That the same author also counted the Jews among the nations that were distinguished for wisdom, and wrote many things according to the sense of Holy Scripture, the aforesaid Eusebius attests, Bk. IX, ch. 7. But it is pleasing to subjoin this further passage from the first book of the same Numenius's *On the Good*: "Whoever B enters upon this argument should seal it with the testimonies of Plato, and returning to the age itself, which came before him, should yoke it with the words and precepts of Pythagoras himself. Nations, moreover, are to be cited that are most renowned, and the sacrifices, rites, and customs of each—which wholly agree with the Platonic teachings—are to be set forth, as many as have been established by the Brahmans, Jews, Magi, and Egyptians." The same, Bk. XI, ch. [ ]: These things [says] Numenius, by which he illustrated not only the doctrine of Plato, but also that of Moses, who was far older than Plato. The same, ch. [ ]: These things [says] Numenius: compare these with the things which long ago the prophet David sang among the Hebrews in these words: "How magnified are thy works, O Lord!" The same, Bk. IX, ch. [ ]: With these words Numenius left the faith in the miracles performed by Moses, and in God's love toward him, confirmed and attested. Porphyry in the book *On the Cave of the Nymphs* (page [ ] of the Cambridge edition, 1655): "We call the Naiades properly the virtues presiding over the waters; but they also used to call all souls generally who were entering into generation by this name; for they thought that souls sit upon the water, which is fanned by a divine Spirit, as Numenius says; for this reason saying that the prophet also indicated that the Spirit of God was carried upon the waters." C
73. It would scarcely be inept to discourse briefly on each of those of the same name who were handed down by ancient writers, so that we may understand who he was, of whom Origen made mention. The most ancient of all, if I am not mistaken, was the Athenian, a poet of the old comedy, and a writer of forty plays, as Suidas in *Hermippus*. Then afterwards Hermippus made [plays] *Against Hyperbolus*. [Of his plays, there are] *The Porters*, *Hermippus in the Demotae*, *In the Soldiers*, *In the Fates*; and *In the Gods*, *In the Iambi*. He also wrote *Parodies*, and Hermippus, the poet of the old comedy, [wrote] *The Basket-Bearers* (in drama), *In the Cecrops*, *In those on Hipponax*, [Bk.] 16; in the third *On the Disciples of Isocrates*, [Bk.] 13; D in *On Gorgias*, [Bk.] 12; in the first *On Aristotle*, [Bk.] 12; in *On Aristotle*, in the *On the Seven Sages*, [Bk. 7]; in *On Isocrates*, [Bk. 2]; in *On Theophrastus*, in the *Lives*, *On Eutheas*, in the second of *Those who Distinguished Themselves in Learning as Slaves*, [Bk.] 2; *Ister*. And a certain Pappus, whose history Hermippus has taken up, in the first of the books *On Pythagoras*; [Bk. 1]; in the second *On Pythagoras*, in the second *On Lawgivers*, [Bk. 1] *On Abstinence*, [Bk. 1] in the first *On the Magi*, in the first *On Aristotle*: Ister the Callimachean in the first [book] of *Ptolemais*. Ister, slave and acquaintance of Callimachus, Callimachean.
A in the first *On Lawgivers* to have recorded that Pythagoras brought his own philosophy from the Jews to the Greeks. And a book *On the Jews* by the historian Hecataeus is also circulated, in which it is added. Hermippus the Berytian also says that Chiron the Centaur became a teacher of justice.
B Hermippus the Berytian calls her Guenna. And the Berytian Hermippus calls Chiron the Centaur wise; *On Lawgivers* in the first *On Lawgivers*... a slip of memory. And most distinguished of these is Hermippus, a man diligent in all history. He says, therefore, in the first of his books *On Pythagoras*, that Pythagoras, upon the death of one of his associates, Calliphon by name, of the race of the Crotoniates, said that the soul of that man continued to spend time with him both night and day; and that he urged [people] not to cross a place where an ass had stumbled, to abstain from thirst-inducing waters, and to refrain from all blasphemy. Then he adds after this these things: He did and said these things, mimicking the opinions of the Jews and Thracians, and transferring them to himself. For it is said that that man truly transferred many of the customary laws of the Jews into his own philosophy.
Hecataeus the Abderite, a philosopher by profession, and also most capable in matters of action, who flourished at the same time as King Alexander, and who was associated with Ptolemy son of Lagus, has written a book, not in passing but specifically about the Jews themselves, from which I wish to run through, in summary, some of the things said.
Hecataeus further also did more than just mention them. C But... being wrapped in the wickedness of all uncleanness and malice, the theologians... D ...more distinguished is Hermippus, a man most diligent in the investigation of all history. Therefore he reports in the first book *On Pythagoras* that Pythagoras, when one of his familiars had died, by the name of Calliphon, of Crotoniate race, used to say that his soul was spending time with him by day and by night; and he used to command that one should not pass by a place where an ass had stumbled, and that he should abstain from murky water, and should refrain from all blasphemy. Then he follows with: These things he used to do and say, imitating the opinions of the Jews and Thracians, and transferring them to himself. It is said in truth that that man transferred many of the laws of the Jews into his own philosophy.
A And Herennius Philo, in his book *On the Jews*, B first expresses doubt whether that writing belongs to the historian; and secondly, he says that, if it is his, it is likely that he was carried away by the persuasiveness found among the Jews, and gave his assent to that doctrine. But I marvel how Celsus considers the Odrysians, the Samothracians, the Eleusinians, and the Hyperboreans to be among the most ancient and wisest nations, yet does not consider the Jews worthy of being accepted either among the wise or among the ancient—even though there are many Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Greeks who testify to their antiquity. It would be useless to bring forward those writers, whom anyone can see in the two books of Josephus *On the Antiquity of the Jews*. For there, many authors are collected by that writer, who bear witness to the antiquity of the Jews. There is also in everyone’s hands the book of Tatian the younger *Against the Gentiles*, in which he most learnedly puts forward historians who testify to the antiquity of the Jews and of Moses. It is clear, therefore, that Celsus did not C accept the faith in the gods, and he claims to have written three books *On the Disputes of the Greeks*, while forgetting the Jews, and calls the Phoenicians and Egyptians the most ancient of the barbarians. He agrees there with their dogma concerning the origin of the world, which completely destroys all divinity. If you were to think these things over with yourself, you would say it is not to be expected that he would treat the praises and encomia of the Jews with a fairer mind, since he so persistently clung to the trifles of the Phoenicians and had rejected all the allegories concerning the Greek deities, from which some grace was bestowed upon his own religion. But you say that it was forged of old by the Hellenists. It is a wonder if this happened around the times of Alexander and Ptolemy Lagus. Certainly, Clearchus the Peripatetic and disciple of the Stagirite lived at that time, and in his book *On Sleep* he mentions Hecataeus and his book *On the Jews*, and recounts many things about him, asserting that he lived in the times of Alexander and stayed with Ptolemy (Fl. Josephus, book 1, *Against Apion*). From which it follows that neither his instruction nor his age prevented him from seeking the truth of the matter; and piety forbids us from regarding as a man of such shameless brow one who would write things the falsity of which everyone would refute. Driven to these straits, perhaps you might slander the book of Clearchus as also being forged. But if you were to say that, you would betray your own stubbornness; and, with the truth shining forth, the whole cause you defend would collapse. For the same reason you would reject Abydenus, Theophrastus, Berosus, Numenius, Eupolemus, Alexander Polyhistor, Demetrian, Artapanus, Theodotus, D Chaerilus, Ezekiel, and many others, who committed to writing more and better things about the Jews than Hecataeus did. You would indeed say that the aforementioned witnesses to Jewish antiquity were forged by the Hellenists, and would pour upon them whatever your lust and splendid bile suggested to you. But if this chastisement of a foolish and inept man (to speak in your fashion) displeases your majesty, I will bring into battle the gods, among whom I have numbered you as well. For it is not clearly enough gathered from this, that it is said Herennius Philo doubted concerning that work, as one who only writes that it is not the work of Hecataeus, or that he approved of the opinions of the Jews. Perhaps, therefore, Hecataeus, persuaded by the Jews, had fallen away from the religion of the Greeks, if not entirely, at least to such an extent that he may appear to have been stationed on the border between darkness and light. These things [belong to] Vossius, book 1, cap. 10, *On Greek Historians*: "For we know from Hecataeus that the Jews served as soldiers under Alexander and his successors." Scaliger in his notes on the fragments of the Greek vets., p. 12: "Josephus from Hecataeus," etc. Ibid.: "For this altar described by Hecataeus was destroyed by Judas Maccabaeus." Ibid., p. 21: "You see how great the city of Jerusalem was, which they could truly call the ornament of the whole East in the century of Hecataeus, that is, at the beginning of the Seleucids." Ibid.: "For there was also another Hecataeus of Miletus, older than Herodotus, who wrote under Darius the son of Hystaspes; but this one was of the race and house of Abdera in Thrace, in the times of Alexander the Great and Seleucus. He wrote a separate book, from which this excerpt is taken by Josephus; which indeed we have proposed the more so, that those things which are written here might be in the sight of all, rather than because they contain any obscurity in themselves." Origen, Book 1, *Against Celsus*: etc. You see, reader, how Josephus waged war with Scaliger. SPENCER. He left behind a great multitude of writings. Among which, that famous book *Against the Gentiles* is praised by the testimony of many: in which, having repeated the times of the previous age, he convinces that Moses and the rest of the prophets of the Hebrews were more ancient than all who were most celebrated among the Greeks. Which book, indeed, seems to be the most elegant and the most useful of all those he wrote.
A It seems, therefore, that Celsus says these things not out of a love for truth, but out of malice, having the intention of accusing the origin of Christianity, which is derived from the Jews. But he calls the Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getae—who profess many things akin to the Jewish doctrine, of whom I do not know if any writings are extant—most wise and ancient nations; but as for the Hebrews alone, as far as it lies in his power, he casts them out both from antiquity and from wisdom. And again, having made a catalogue of ancient and wise men who have benefited those of their own times and, through writings, those who came after them, he excluded Moses from the list of the wise; whereas, of Linus, to whom he assigns the first place, no laws or discourses are reported B to have converted and healed nations; but the laws of Moses are carried about by an entire nation, disseminated throughout the whole inhabited world. See, therefore, whether, while acting altogether maliciously, he did not exclude Moses from the catalogue of the wise, while saying that Linus, and Musaeus, and Orpheus, and Pherecydes, and the Persian Zoroaster, and Pythagoras had discoursed on certain dogmas and committed their own doctrines to books, and that these have been preserved until now. And he willingly forgot the myth concerning the so-called gods, as being recorded by Orpheus especially as subject to human passions [(83)]. And they say that Linus also did things similar to these. But to me, reading them, they appeared altogether spurious. For it is written in the Boeotica: “Since neither Linus, the son of Amphimarus, nor the one who lived later, composed them, and what was composed did not reach those who came after. For the dirges C were composed, O Linus, scattered abroad.” But Orpheus will also bear witness for me, he who introduced the three hundred and sixty gods in the book entitled “The Testaments,” since he appears to repent of this from what he writes: “I shall speak to those for whom it is lawful, but close the doors, O ye profane.” And Onomacritus the Athenian, whose poems are said to be those carried under the name of Orpheus, is found to be in the time of the rule of the Pisistratidae, around the fiftieth Olympiad.
D And without doubt he performed penance, if those poems which are circulated are indeed his. But some ascribe the Orphic poems to Onomacritus the Athenian, who flourished during the reign of the Pisistratidae.
B 17. Afterwards he criticizes the books of Moses and blames those who interpret them by tropology and allegory. Here one might rightly ask of that excellent man, and of his book which he adorns with the title *True Discourse*: "What, my good man! If you pride yourself that your wise poets and philosophers have recorded that gods fell into such misfortunes as they describe—that they engaged in defiled unions, warred against their own parents, and castrated their own fathers—recording that they dared to commit such things, and did them, and suffered them; do you think that those who have submitted themselves to the laws of Moses have been deceived and led into error, even though he has written nothing of the kind concerning God, nor even concerning the holy angels, but has spoken of men in much milder terms? For there is no one in his books who has dared to do such a thing as Saturn did against Caelus, or Jupiter against his father. There is no 'father of gods and men' in his writings who has lain with his own daughter."
It seems to me that Celsus is doing something similar to that Platonic Thrasymachus, who would not allow Socrates to answer as he wished concerning justice, but said to him: "Beware, lest you say that what is beneficial is just, or necessary, or anything of the sort." For indeed he himself, after having attacked—as he thinks—the Mosaic histories, and having blamed those who explain them by allegory, while yet granting them a certain measure of fairness, prevents by his accusations those who could from defending them as they would wish, and as the nature of things demands.
18. But let us invite him to compare book with book. Come, Celsus, bring forward the poetry of Linus, Musaeus, and Orpheus, and the history of Pherecydes. C Compare these writings with the laws of Moses, their histories with his histories, their moral regulations with his laws and precepts. Consider which, by reading alone, is more capable of turning listeners away from vice, and which is more capable of hardening them in evil. And consider within yourself that your writers took almost no account of ordinary readers, but wrote their philosophy—as you call it—for those alone who knew how to interpret it through tropology and allegory. But Moses, like a vigorous orator who has pondered a certain figure of speech and refrains from uttering a single word that cannot bear a double meaning, has done the same in his five books. Neither for the multitude... D
of the Jews who were governed by his laws did he provide an occasion for sin, nor for those more sagacious readers, who are few, and who desire to investigate the intention of the lawgiver, was there a lack of material for examining deeper truths. Add to this that the books of your own wise poets seem to have already perished; they would surely have been preserved had any one who chanced upon them perceived any profit in them. But the writings of Moses have convinced even those who were strangers to the upbringing of the Jews that He who first ordained those laws and delivered them to Moses was the God who created the world. For it was fitting that the Creator of the whole world, who had imposed laws upon the entire world, should impart to his words a power capable of mastering men everywhere. I say this, not yet inquiring into the matter of Jesus, but in order to show that Moses, although far inferior to the Lord—as the argument will demonstrate—is nevertheless far superior to your wise poets and philosophers. But more on this matter later. B
19. Thereafter Celsus, wishing to covertly disparage the account of the world’s creation according to Moses—which shows that the world has not even ten thousand years to its count, but is much more recent than that—conceals what he himself thinks about this matter and sides with those who believe the world to be unbegotten. For his statement that there have been many conflagrations from all eternity, and many deluges, and that the most recent flood was the one in the time of Deucalion, which happened not long ago, clearly reveals to those who can understand him that it is Celsus' opinion that the world was not created. Let him, this accuser of the Christian faith, tell us by what demonstrative proofs he was compelled to believe that many conflagrations and many floods have already occurred; and that the last of these was the one that confounded the earth in the time of Deucalion, and that the last conflagration occurred in the age of Phaethon. If he brings forward the dialogues of Plato, we shall tell him that it is permitted to us C also to believe, in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who raised himself above created D things that this deluge took place under Cranaus, the successor of Cecrops. Clement, in the first book of the *Stromata*, twice asserts that the Deucalion flood and the conflagration of Phaethon occurred in the time of Crotopus. Should we write "in the age of Cecrops"? "If this pleases anyone," says the most learned Potter, "let him have Eusebius as his authority, who in the proemium of his *Chronicon* reports from Tatian and Clement: 'The first was Cecrops Diphyes, in whose time Moses became renowned among the Hebrews, as we shall show in due time; and under the same there occurred the Deucalion flood in Thessaly and the conflagration of Phaethon in Ethiopia.'" The same things occur in the *Epitome of the Kings of Athens*, and they were translated by Scaliger on page 561. Furthermore, regarding the epoch of the Deucalion flood, see Petavius, *Rationarium temporum*, part II, book II, chapter 9. There are great differences of opinion among the ancients concerning the epoch of the Deucalion flood and the fire of Phaethon. An old author, whom Clement of Alexandria mentions in the first book of the *Stromata*, thought these had occurred three hundred and three years before the destruction of Troy. Jerome in his *Chronicon*, Cyril of Alexandria in his book *Against Julian*, and Augustine in the eighteenth book of *The City of God*, refer them to the age of Cecrops, king of Athens. But in the same place Augustine reports and seems to embrace another opinion of Varro, namely, that the conflagration happened long after the beginning.
A
ORIGENIS had raised all things and committed them entirely to God, was the indwelling of the divine Spirit, who set forth things divine far more clearly than Plato or any of the wise men among the Greeks or barbarians. B And if he should demand of us a rationale for this faith, let him first render a rationale for those things which he has asserted without any authority; then we too shall prove that these things of ours are as we say.
20. Moreover, Celsus unwillingly bears witness that the world is more recent, and has not yet completed ten thousand years, when he says that these things are considered ancient by the Greeks because, on account of deluges and conflagrations, no one saw, nor did anyone commit to the records of literature, things more ancient. Let Celsus keep his teachers regarding conflagrations and deluges, the Egyptians, who themselves seem the wisest of all. They have indeed left behind excellent traces of such great wisdom, seeing that they worshipped animals devoid of reason, and have attempted with their arguments to prove that the worship thus rendered to God is consistent with reason and is grounded upon certain arcane and abstruse rationales. And the Egyptians, indeed, are held to be wise when they extol their own mode of worshipping God as residing in the worship of animals; but if any one, assenting to the law and the lawgiver of the Jews, refers all things to the Creator of the universe and the only God, he seems to Celsus and his like to be inferior to them, because he does not extend the divine nature to things devoid of reason—which in its impiety far surpasses the fabulous transmigration from bodies into bodies, by which it comes about that the soul, having slipped down from the vaults of heaven, descends into brute animals, whether tame or wild. When the Egyptians tell fables of this kind, they are considered to be investigating recondite and arcane matters; but when Moses records histories and leaves laws for a whole nation, his words are considered empty fables, nor do they seem to admit of an allegorical sense. C
21. And this is the opinion of Celsus and the Epicureans. For he says: "Having heard this doctrine, which he had received from wise nations and learned men, Moses obtained a divine name." To this I say: Be it so, that Moses delivered a more ancient doctrine which he had heard from other Hebrews. If he received from others a doctrine that was false, or that had nothing of gravity or wisdom in it, and commended it to those whom he governed, he is deservedly to be blamed; but if, as you say, he received wise and true dogmas, and taught them to his own people, what has he done that can justly be criticized? I wish that Epicurus D
A and his even less pious inferior regarding Providence, Aristotle, and the Stoics who say that God is a body, had heard this doctrine! The world by this time would not be full of a doctrine which either abolishes Providence, or confines it within certain bounds, or introduces a perishable principle which is bodily—on account of which the Stoics assert that God is a body, and are not ashamed to say that He is mutable, and through and through subject to alteration 6 and change, and absolutely capable of perishing if there were someone to destroy Him, and fortunate only in that there is nothing to destroy Him. But the doctrine of the Jews and Christians, which guards the immutability and unchangeableness of God, is judged impious because it does not share in the impiety of those who think wrongly about God, saying in the prayers to the Divine: "But You are the same" [Ps. ci, 28]; and it is believed that God has also said, "I do not change" [Mal. iii, 6]. B
After this, Celsus, not blaming the practice of circumcision as it takes place among the Jews, says that "it came from the Egyptians 7"; preferring to believe the Egyptians rather than Moses, who writes that Abraham was the first of men to be circumcised [Gen. xvii, 28]. C
...as for the consideration of even the baser animals, it is by no means worthy of being treated with a childish disgust and annoyance; for there is no aspect of nature in which something worthy of wonder is not contained. And what they report Heraclitus to have said to those who wished to converse with him, but who held back when they saw him warming himself at an oven—for he bade them enter boldly, saying that "there are gods even in this place"—is D to be noted.
Those who are called Stoic philosophers also dogmatize that God Himself is to be dissolved into fire, and again, through a transformation, that the world is to be created. As for the Stoics, he says, we know that they hold an opinion not only regarding daemons, as I have said, but even regarding the gods—that although there are so many of them, they use only one who is eternal and incorruptible, while they consider the others to be both born and destined to perish.
A Indeed, it is not Moses alone who records this name, making it his own; it is used by many of those who cast out demons: "The God of Abraham." By this, they indicate the familiarity that this just man had with God. Therefore they invoke the God of Abraham, even if they do not know who Abraham was. The same must be said of Isaac, and of Jacob [(9)], and of Israel—names which, though it is admitted they are Hebrew, are nonetheless used by the Egyptians in their rites when they promise something miraculous.
As for the matter of circumcision, which Abraham first practiced and which Jesus did not wish his disciples to observe, I do not intend to explain its reasons B now, nor is this the appropriate place for such an explanation. Instead, we must fight against Celsus; and because he thought he could more easily prove Christianity false if he showed that the Jewish religion, to which it owes its origin, was false, it is necessary to overthrow completely whatever calumnies he has cast upon that religion.
[(23)] Celsus says next: "Those who followed Moses, those goatherds and shepherds, deceived by rustic tricks, believed there was only one God." Let him show, then, how, since goatherds and shepherds—in his opinion—illogically abandoned the worship of gods, he himself can prove the existence of the multitude of gods whom the Greeks and other barbarians worship. Let him say what thing it is, what Mnemosyne, who bore the Muses from Zeus, C or Themis, who bore the Horas, is in its nature. Let him demonstrate that the Graces, always naked, can exist in essence. But he will not be able to demonstrate that those figments of the Greeks, which seem to be given bodies, are gods based on their works. For why would the myths of the Greeks about the gods be more true—for example—than those of the Egyptians, who do not know Mnemosyne, the mother of the nine Muses, in their own language, nor Themis, nor the other peoples who adopted the rite of circumcision from the Jews? D Concerning the Ethiopians, Artapanus testifies in *Eusebius, lib. ix, cap. 27*: "The Ethiopians themselves, although they were enemies, were so favorably inclined towards Moses that they also received the rite of circumcision from him. And this was performed by all their priests as well." [Spencer].
A nor did he admit the Muses' mother, the nine [Muses], nor Themis, [mother] of the Hours, nor Eurynome, one of the Graces, nor the rest of their names? How much more clearly then, and better than all these fictions, is the argument for one who, persuaded by the manifest order of the things perceived in the world, worships its creator, who is one, and because he is one and in all respects in agreement with Himself, for that reason could not have been created by many creators, just as the whole heaven, which moves them, cannot be contained by many souls? For one is sufficient, carrying the whole motionless [sphere] from east to west, and enclosing within itself all things which the world needs that are not self-sufficient. For all things are parts of the world, but God is not a part of the whole. For God must not be incomplete, as a part is incomplete. But perhaps a deeper argument will show that God, in the proper sense, is neither a part nor a whole, since a whole is composed of parts; and reason will not permit us to accept that the God over all is composed of parts, of which each cannot do what the others do.
After this he says that "the goatherds and shepherds believed there was one God, whether [they called] him Most High, or Adonai, or Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or in whatever way they delight to name this world; and they knew nothing more." And he continues: "and it makes no difference whether one calls the God over all by the name used among the Greeks, or Zeus, or by such and such [a name] (let us say) among the Indians, or among the Egyptians." B To this we must reply that a deep and secret question enters into our present subject: the question concerning the nature of names, and whether, as is the opinion of Aristotle, names are applied to things by convention, or whether the names of the rest of the barbarians [are natural]. C But after this he says: "the goatherds and shepherds believed there was one God, whether they called him Most High, or Adonai, or Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or by whatever other name they might prefer to call this world; nor did they know anything beyond that." And shortly after: "It makes no difference by what name God is called, whether Zeus, as among the Greeks, or by any other name used among the Egyptians or Indians." To which we must respond that there is another and more arcane question concerning the nature of names: whether, as it pleases Aristotle, words were imposed upon things by convention; or why, among these, one might designate the masculine sex and apply to feminine genders that which follows? These are human decisions, and not altogether necessary for the use of creating language; and shortly after: "Do you not say 'these skins' (hæc utria) in one way, and 'these skins' (hos utres) in another, 'heaven' (cælus) and 'heaven' (cælum), etc.?" Among Plato, the name is an instrument adapted for teaching things, and by which the nature of the things themselves is discriminated. Plato in the Cratylus, page 388. The same [author] in the following [pages] supposes that certain primary words existed which indicated the nature of things,—the fountains of the rest which we use,—but which are buried by the situation of antiquity and escape human comprehension by far (ibid. page 421, 25): "For we have nothing better than this to which we might reduce our disquisition concerning the truth of the first names, unless perhaps, just as the tragic poets, when the matter is most intricate, take refuge in machines and introduce gods, so we too might depart, after we have said that the gods imposed the first names, and for this reason they are correctly instituted." In this way this matter will be best explained by us, or by the other [way] which we noted above, that we received them from certain barbarians. D
A Or, as the Stoics think, names are by nature, imitating the first sounds, from which the objects, to which the names refer, have originated, as they also introduce6 certain elements of etymology; or, as Epicurus teaches, names are by nature, the first men having broken off 19 certain sounds corresponding to the objects. If, therefore, we can in a primary discourse demonstrate the nature of efficient names, which some sages of the Egyptians employ, or the learned among the Magi of the Persians, or the Brachmanes 20 among the philosophers of the Indians, or the Samanaei, and so on for each of the nations; and if we are able to establish that what is called magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle think, a thing entirely B baseless, but, as those skilled in these matters demonstrate, has a certain power greater than human, which first imposed names upon things. "What then? Do you not think it a noble thing to know how it is correct to name that river Xanthus rather than Scamander? Or, if you wish, concerning the bird which he mentions, that the gods call Chalcis, but men Cymindis; do you consider the study a trivial one, in how much more correct it is for the same bird to be called Chalcis than Cymindis? Or [about] the batiea, and the myrine, and many other things of this poet, and of others. But these things perhaps are too great for me and for you to discover." From the prophets, "a stream of words first of mankind." For the Indian state being divided into many parts: there is among them a race of theosophists, whom the Greeks are accustomed to call Gymnosophists. And of these there are two sects; of which the Brachmanes stand at the head of one, and the Samanaei of the other. But the Brachmanes receive this kind of theosophy by inheritance from their ancestors, as if it were a priesthood; but the Samanaei are chosen, and are filled by those who wish to practice theosophy. And the matter concerning them is in this manner, as Bardesanes, a Babylonian man, who lived in the time of our fathers, and who met with those C Indians who were sent to Caesar by Damadamis, has described. D
A Since this teaching is very profound and known to very few, we shall say that the names Sabaoth, Adonai, and others handed down among the Hebrews with many solemnities, do not refer to common and created things, but rather to a certain secret theology that leads and raises up the mind to the Creator of all things. Wherefore, these names, if pronounced in the natural order which they hold among themselves, possess a singular power. Hence it also comes about that certain names pronounced in the Egyptian language have power over certain demons whose authority extends only to these or those particular things; others, in the Persian dialect, over other powers B, and thus they are used for various needs among each of the nations. And in this way it will be found that the demons upon the earth, having been allotted different places, are influenced by names that are appropriate to the dialects of those places and nations. Anyone, therefore, who has taken a somewhat more noble grasp of these things will be cautious about applying names to things in a haphazard manner, lest he suffer an error similar to those who wrongly apply the name of God to lifeless matter; or who drag down the title of the Good from the first cause, or from virtue and what is noble, to blind wealth, or to the symmetry of flesh, blood, and bones in which a good bodily state is situated, or to that which they call nobility of lineage.
And perhaps the danger is no less for the one who brings the name of God or the name of the Good down to those things to which he should not, C than for the one who changes the names that are used in secret disciplines, such that inferior things are fitted to superior, and superior to inferior. And I do not mean that when Zeus is named, there immediately comes to mind the son of Cronus and Rhea, the husband of Hera, the brother of Poseidon, the father of Athena and Artemis, and he who defiled his own daughter, Persephone; or that when Apollo is named, there does not instantly come into the mind the son of Leto and Zeus, the brother of Artemis, and the brother of Hermes by the same father, and whatever other things the wise fathers of Celsus' doctrines and the ancient theologians of the Greeks have invented. For by what lot is he who is properly called Zeus not to have Cronus for his father D and Rhea for his mother? And the same must be done in the case of the other so-called gods. But this reproach in no way touches those who, according to a certain secret reason, apply the name Sabaoth or Adonai or any of the other names to God. Now concerning the appellation of the angels of God, of whom one is named Michael, another Gabriel, and another Raphael.
these are names appropriate to the things which they administer throughout the universe according to the will of the God of all things. Our Jesus also holds to the same philosophy concerning names; his name has already been seen clearly to have cast out countless demons from souls and bodies, exerting its power upon those from whom they were cast out. A Furthermore, regarding the subject of names, it must be said that those skilled in the use of incantations report that an incantation pronounced in its original language is able to perform what it promises, but if changed into any other language, it is found to be ineffective and powerless. Thus, the power to effect this or that result lies not in the meaning of the words relative to the objects, but in the qualities and properties of the sounds themselves. By such arguments, we shall also defend those Christians who choose to die for their religion rather than call God by the name of Zeus or address him in a foreign language. For they either confess him simply by the common name, "God," or with the addition of "the Creator of all things, the maker of heaven and earth," who sent these certain wise men to the human race, to whose name, when the name of God is joined, it produces a certain power among men. Many other things could indeed be said on the subject of names against those who think it makes no difference how we use them. For if Plato is to be admired because, when Philebus was conversing with Socrates and had called pleasure a god, he placed this response in the mouth of Socrates: B "I have a great religious awe regarding the names of the gods"; how much more is the piety of the Christians to be approved, who are unwilling to apply a name celebrated in myths to the Creator of all things? But of these matters, enough for the present.
26. Now let us see how that man Celsus, who professes to know all things, slanders the Jews, saying, "They pay worship to angels, and are addicted to magic arts, of which Moses was their teacher." For let him discover in what passage of the writings of Moses he found the lawgiver teaching them to worship angels, C and let him state it, for he promises to know everything.
Against Celsus, Book I
26. Now let us see in what way Celsus, who professes to know everything, slanders the Jews, saying, "They pay worship to angels, and are addicted to magic arts, of which Moses was their teacher." For let him discover in what passage of the writings of Moses he found the lawgiver teaching them to worship angels; let the man who professes to know everything speak. D You might consider the celestial spheres to be endowed with soul and intelligence, an opinion of R. Moses which David Kimchi explains in his commentary on the nineteenth Psalm in these words: R. Moses, he says, explains that word *enarrant* (they announce) so as to refer it to the celestial spheres; for this is his opinion and that of the philosophers, that the celestial spheres live, and understand, and worship God, and praise Him with the highest hymns. Hence Baronius, in the place cited, thinks that the Jews were called *caelicolae* (heaven-worshippers) by the emperors (in the code *De Judaeis et Caelicolis*), because they worshipped the stars and the heavens; but Scaliger offers another reason for the name, concerning which we shall discuss more opportunely at the final heresy. Moreover, what Celsus objected to the Jews in Origen (book 1), saying "they worship angels," etc., can be referred here. Jerome confirms the conjecture of the most learned men in his response to the question proposed by Algasia: "But God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets." Now the host of heaven is not only called the sun, and the moon, and the glittering stars; but also the whole angelic multitude and their armies, who He-
- A labled as Sabaoth, that is, of virtues, or of hosts; and a little after: "God delivered them, that they might serve the host of heaven, which is now called by the Apostle the religion of angels." The same is argued from the book entitled the *Preaching of Peter*, which Clement of Alexandria praises in the first book of the *Stromata*: "And do not worship as the Jews; for they, thinking that they alone know God, do not understand that they are worshipping angels and archangels, the month and the moon," etc. I would prefer to interpret this passage regarding the Cerinthians, who, for the most part, favored the Jews; as is evident from Epiphanius, *Haer.* 28; Theodoret, *On Heretical Fables*; Augustine, *On Heresies*; Eusebius, *Eccl. hist.*, book III, chap. 25; indeed, if you are to believe Damascenus, *On Heresies*: "There were certain Jews who extolled circumcision," and among other dogmas which they professed, this was not the least significant, namely, that the law was given by angels, and that the God of the Jews was one of the angels who created the world. Tertullian, chap. 48, *On Prescription against Heretics*: "After him, the heretic Cerinthus erupted, teaching similar things; for he himself says that the world was instituted by them, he proposes that Christ was born from the seed of Joseph, contending that he was only a man without divinity, and he also claims the law itself was given by angels, setting forth the God of the Jews, not as the Lord, but as an angel." See Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augustine, Eusebius, in the cited places; and from there you may think Celsus seized the opportunity for calumny. For whom did the Jews (that is, the Cerinthians, according to Celsus) worship besides angels, when they believed that the law was given by the same ones and that the world was created by them?
A of the Christians and the Jews. How can magic arts exist among those who have accepted the Law of Moses, having read: "You shall not adhere to sorcerers, lest you be defiled by them"? He promises that he will teach subsequently how the Jews were also led astray, being deceived by ignorance. And if he had found the ignorance regarding Jesus Christ among the Jews—who did not listen to the B prophecies concerning Him—he would have truly taught how the Jews were led astray; but as it is, not even wishing to imagine these things, he assumes that the faults of the Jews are not faults. Celsus, having promised that he would later teach about the Jews, first makes his discourse concerning our Savior, as having been the leader of our generation insofar as we are Christians, and he says: "That He brought in this teaching a very few years ago, having been considered by the Christians to be the Son of God." And regarding his statement that He occurred only a few years ago, we say the following: "Was Jesus, desiring to sow His own word and teaching, unable in these few years to achieve so much, that in many places of our inhabited world, many Greeks and barbarians, wise and ignorant, were attracted to His teaching and persuaded in such a way—something never heard of regarding any other religion—that they would rather struggle unto death for Christianity than renounce it, C as has been recorded of no one else for any other dogma—unless it has happened godlessly?" For my part, not flattering the word, but attempting to examine things observantly, I would say that not even those who cure many sick bodies obtain the end of the health of bodies without the will of God. But if someone were able to deliver souls from the mire of vice, from licentiousness, from iniquity, and from contempt for the Divine, and could give proof of such a work, having improved a hundred in number (let the discourse be about so many), no one would justly say that he had freed those hundred men from such great vices without God. And if someone, prudently considering these things, grants that no good happens to men D without God, how much more confidently will he affirm this about Jesus, when he compares the former morals with the new ones of those who have adhered to Christ's teaching?
A And if one examines and compares the older lives of many who have come to His Word with their later lives, and observes in what debaucheries, what injustices, and what greed each of these was involved before—as Celsus and those who share his views say—they were deceived and accepted a doctrine which, as they say, ruins human life; from this very Word which they have received, one may see how they have become more gentle and more stable. Indeed, some of them, out of love for a transcendent purity and in order to worship the Divine more purely, even abstain from the sexual satisfactions permitted by the law. B
(37) He who ponders these things will understand that Jesus dared to attempt things greater than human powers, and that what He dared, He achieved. For from the very beginning, no one was not trying to hinder the Word of His doctrine from being sown throughout the whole world: the kings of every age, the commanders and governors of armies, whoever, to put it in a word, possessed any authority, and furthermore those who held power in the cities, the soldiers, and the crowds. C He conquered them all, since the Word was of God and was of such a nature that it could not be hindered and would overcome all its adversaries. It subdued all of Greece and the greater part of the barbarian nations, and brought countless souls to the worship of God which it taught. Now, since there are everywhere more ignorant and rustic people than those trained in the sciences, it was necessary that in such a multitude of those receiving the doctrine, there should be more of the rude and rustic than the lettered. However, Celsus, not wishing to give his mind to these things, nor to consider the kindness of this Word and its advancing... D
A to every soul across the rising of the sun, thinks that it is rude, and because of this rudeness, and [because it is] in no way capable of being in arguments, it has prevailed only among the rude. Nor does he himself say that only the rude have been brought by the Word to the worship of God according to Jesus; for he confesses that there are also among them those who are moderate and gentle, and some who are sensible, and ready for allegory.
Since he also employs personification, having in a way imitated a child introduced in a rhetorician’s [text], and introduces a Jew speaking to Jesus in a somewhat childish manner, and nothing worthy of a philosopher’s gray hairs; come, let us examine these things to the best of our ability and refute them, showing that he has maintained neither the character befitting a Jew in the things said. After this, he personifies a Jew conversing with Jesus himself, and rebuking him for many things, as he thinks—first, that he had fabricated his birth from a virgin B; and he reproaches him also because he was born from a Jewish village, and from a local, impoverished woman, who earned her living by spinning. He says that she was even cast out by the husband who had married her, who was a carpenter by trade, having been convicted of adultery. Then he says that, having been cast out by her husband and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus in secret; and that he, because of poverty, having hired himself out to Egypt, and having there gained experience of certain powers, on which the Egyptians pride themselves, returned, thinking highly of himself because of these powers, and for their sake proclaimed C himself to be God. But all these things, to one capable of not leaving anything said by unbelievers unexamined, but rather investigating the very principle of the facts, seem to me to harmonize with the fact that Jesus was worthy of the prediction that he is the Son of God.
For among men, birth contributes to some being famous and renowned, and their name spread abroad—lineage, when parents happen to be in high standing and advancement, and wealth of the D ancestors—which are doors [that] are open, and to whom none are closed.
29. For the lineage, the dignity and preeminence of parents, their ample means for the liberal education of a son, a splendid and illustrious country, contribute much to the splendor, to the glory,
ad nominis celebritatem; quando vero aliquis, cui hæc omnia secus contigerunt, potest e tot difficultatibus ad claritatem emergere, commovere sui fama audientium animos, fieri celebris et clarus, famaque sui nominis universum orbem implere insolita de ipso prædicantem, quis indolem hujusmodi sponte et ex seipsa generosam, magnis rebus operam dantem, eximia fiducia præditam non admiretur? Si quis autem altius scrutari velit, annon is quæsiturus est, quonam modo ille parce et in paupertate educatus, nullisque liberalibus disciplinis eruditus, rudis et imperitus artium, quæ sunt ad flectendos, demulcendos, conciliandosque sibi plurium auditorum animos accommodæ, aggressus sit nova dogmata promulgare, doctrinamque in genus humanum invehere, quæ et Judæorum ritus, intactis tamen eorum prophetis, abolet, et maxime Græcorum de Numinis cultu leges evertit? Qui fieri potuit, ut idem ille sic institutus, nihilque magnum, ut ipsi ejus obtrectatores confitentur, ab homine edoctus, de Dei judicio, de criminum pœnis, de virtutum præmiis talia tamque non contemnenda dissereret, ut non agrestes modo et illitteratos, sed etiam non paucos ex iis ad se alliceret, qui acutiore ingenio erant et poterant arcana perscrutari, quæ rebus specie vilioribus, ut ita dicam, velut involuta latebant?
C Apud Platonem cum Seriphius quidam exprobrasset Themistocli bellicæ virtutis gloria celeberrimo, quod non propria virtute splendorem esset assecutus, sed quia patria illi contigerat totius Græciæ clarissima, is gratus in patriam, quam ad suum honorem contulisse noverat, respondit: « Nec ego si Seriphius essem, ita clarus: nec tu, si Atheniensis, fuisses Themistocles. » Noster autem Jesus, cui probro datur quod ex vico ortus sit, eoque non Græcanico nec alius gentis celebratæ; qui male audit quod pauperculæ operariæque matris sit filius, quod inopia coactus patriam reliquerit, suamque in Ægypto mercede locaverit operam; Jesus ille, qui non solum Seriphius, ut eodem exemplo utar, ex minima despicatissimaque insula ortus; sed etiam Seriphiorum, ut ita dicam, ignobilissimus erat, D valuit permovere totum orbem, non modo magis quam Atheniensis Themistocles, sed etiam quam Plato, aut Pythagoras, aut quidquid sapientum, regum, imperatorumque toto orbe fuit.
30. Quis igitur, qui naturam rerum haud negligenter consideret, non admiretur eum gloria potuisse vincere et ea omnia, quæ infamiæ esse poterant, et quotquot unquam celebres fuerunt? Nam ex iis qui sibi inter homines nomen fecerunt, paucos B A (being the nurture of those who have been enabled to spend upon the education of a son, and indeed a fatherland that is great and distinguished; but when someone, having all things contrary to these, is able, having surmounted the things that hinder him, to be known and to stir those hearing about him, and to become manifest and clear to the whole inhabited world, which speaks contrary things about him, how is such a nature not to be admired, being from the start great-souled, and set upon great things, and having a boldness not to be despised? And if one were to examine into the things concerning such a one further, how would one not seek to know in what manner, having been reared in poverty and want, and having been taught no encylical education, nor having learned speeches and dogmas from which he might have been able to become persuasive in speaking to crowds, and to lead the people, and to attract the greater number of hearers, he gives himself to the teaching of new dogmas, introducing into the human race a word that both abolishes the customs of the Jews—while treating their prophets with reverence—and most especially overturns the laws of the Greeks concerning the worship of the Divine? And how could such a one, and so reared, and having learned nothing noble from any man (as even those who slander him admit), be able to speak of the judgment of God, and of the punishments for wickedness, and of the rewards for the good, in no contemptible way, so that not only are the unrefined and the common folk led by the things spoken, but also many even of those who are more intelligent and able to gaze into the hidden things—that are deemed to be of a lower order—of that which is being announced, which contains within itself, if one may say so, something more unspeakable? C The Seriphian, then, in Plato, upbraiding Themistocles, who had become famous for his generalship, as having gained his glory not from his own character but from having been fortunate in a fatherland that was the most distinguished in all Greece, heard from the grateful Themistocles, who saw that his fatherland had contributed to his glory, saying: "I would not, being a Seriphian, have been so glorious; nor would you, had you been fortunate enough to be an Athenian, have been Themistocles." But our Jesus, even when being reproached as having come from a village, and that not of Greece, nor of any nation that is held in high esteem by the multitude; and being slandered as the son of a poor, working mother, and for having left his fatherland due to poverty, and for having worked for wages in Egypt; Jesus himself, who not only was a Seriphian, to use the same example, appearing from the smallest and most insignificant island, but also, so to speak, the most ignoble of the Seriphians, has been able to shake the whole inhabited world, not only more than Themistocles the Athenian, but also more than Pythagoras, and Plato, and any others of those who throughout the inhabited world have been wise men or kings or generals.
30. Who then, not negligently investigating the nature of things, would not be astonished at him for having been able to overcome [all] with glory, and all those things that could have been for a reproach, and all those who have ever been famous? For of those who have made a name for themselves among men, few D
one has been wondered at for wisdom, another for generalship, some of the barbarians for their extraordinary power in incantations, and others for other things; but not many of these were wondered at for many things at once, and have become famous. This man, however, is wondered at, in addition to other things, for his wisdom, for his powers, and for his authority. For he persuaded men, not as a tyrant would, to desert their laws with him, nor as a robber would, inciting his followers B against men, nor as a wealthy man would, by showering gifts upon those who approach him, nor as any of those whose manner of acting is notoriously blameworthy; but as a teacher of the discourse concerning the God of the universe, and of the worship of Him, and of every moral way of life that can reconcile to the God over all those who have lived according to his teachings. And for Themistocles, or any of those illustrious men, nothing happened that was contrary to their glory. But for this man, in addition to the things mentioned, which were C sufficient to shroud the soul—even one of a very noble nature—in ignominy, the death that is deemed shameful, by being crucified, was enough to make even his previous glory vanish, and to make those who had already been deceived—as those who do not accept his teaching think—to desist from their deception and to condemn the one who had deceived them.
Furthermore, one might wonder: where did it come from for his disciples—as the slanderers of Jesus say—without having seen him risen from the dead, and not at all convinced that he was something D of a more divine nature, not to be afraid to suffer the same things as their teacher, but to go to meet the danger and abandon their homelands to teach, according to the will of Jesus, the doctrine entrusted to them by him? For I believe that anyone who examines matters with an open mind would not say that they would have committed themselves to a life of such danger for the sake of Jesus’ teaching, without some great persuasion which he instilled in them, teaching not only how to be disposed oneself according to his instructions, but also how to dispose others as well; and this at a time when, as regards the life of men generally, it was obvious that ruin awaited anyone who dared to innovate everywhere and before everyone, and who would not keep any man as a friend if he remained attached to ancestral dogmas and customs. For did not the disciples of Jesus see this, when they dared not only to show the Jews, from the prophetic writings, that this was he who had been prophesied, but also to show the other nations that the one who had been crucified only yesterday and the day before, had willingly accepted this death on behalf of the human race, for this reason being like those who had died on behalf of their homelands in order to extinguish plagues that had gained sway and
A droughts or poor sailing conditions? For it is reasonable, given the nature of things, according to certain accounts that are mysterious and difficult for the majority to grasp, that there is a nature such that one just man, dying voluntarily on behalf of the common good, should create a diversion for wicked demons who are causing plagues or droughts or poor sailing conditions or anything of the like. Let those, then, who are unwilling to believe that Jesus died on behalf of men by the manner of the cross say whether or not they will accept the many Greek and barbarian histories B regarding certain men who have died on behalf of the common good to remove the evils that had taken hold of cities and nations. Or if those things indeed happened, but there is nothing persuasive in the notion that the man who was considered to be a man died for the destruction of a great demon and the prince of demons, C who had brought into subjection all the souls of men that had come upon the earth? Seeing these things, the disciples of Jesus, and many things other than these, which it is likely they learned from Jesus in secret—and having been filled moreover with a certain power (for it was not some poetic maiden who gave them courage and boldness, but the true prudence and wisdom of God)—they strove, D so that they might become manifest to everyone, not only to the Argives, but also to all Greeks and barbarians alike, and might win a noble renown.
32. But let us return to the dramatic presentation of the Jew, in which it is written that the mother of Jesus, having been pregnant, was cast out by the carpenter who had betrothed her, being accused of adultery, [32. 350] and that she gave birth to a child by a certain soldier named Panthera.
A And let us see if those who fabricated the adultery of the Virgin and Panthera, and the carpenter casting her out, did not invent all these things to destroy the belief in the miraculous conception from the Holy Spirit. For they could have slandered the history in another way, due to its being highly miraculous, and not have seemed as if they were forced to concede that Jesus was not born from marriage in the customary way. And it was consistent for those who did not agree to the miraculous birth of Jesus B to invent some falsehood. But for them to have done this unpersuasively—while at the same time preserving the fact that the Virgin conceived Jesus not from Joseph—was a manifest falsehood to those capable of hearing and refuting such fabrications. For is it reasonable that He who dared so much for the human race, in order that, as far as it depended upon Him, all Greeks and barbarians should expect divine judgment, turn away from wickedness, and in all things act in a way pleasing to the Creator of all, should have had a birth that was not miraculous, but the most lawless and shameful of all births?
I will speak as to Greeks, and especially to Celsus, whether he holds these views or not, so long as he puts forward the teachings of Plato: "Does He who sends souls into the bodies of men push into the most shameful of all births him who was destined to dare so much, to teach so many, and to turn many men from the flood of wickedness, without even introducing him into the life of men through lawful marriage?" Or is it more reasonable that each soul, according to certain secret reasons—I speak these things now according to Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus often names—should be assigned to a body? C And see if those who invented the adultery of the Virgin and Panthera, and [the story of] the carpenter casting her out, did not contrive these fables with a blind mind, so as to remove the unusual conception from the Holy Spirit from the middle. For this history is so contrary to custom that they might have refuted it in another way, and not as if they were unwillingly acceding that Jesus was not born in the common manner from a marriage. It was surely consistent that those who abrogated belief in the unusual birth of Jesus should flee to a lie. But to find a lie that is in no way plausible, and while admitting this, [that] it remains nonetheless true that Jesus was not conceived by Joseph from the Virgin, is a fraud evident to those who know how to hear and refute such fictions. For how is it probable that He who undertook so much for the human race, and gave as much effort as was in Him, so that all Greeks and barbarians alike, out of fear of divine judgment, might refrain from vices, and in all things strive to please the Creator of all things, did not have a miraculous birth, but the wickedest and most shameful of all? I ask the Greeks, and in particular Celsus, who either agrees with Plato or at least adopts Platonic [arguments]: "Does He who sends the souls of men into bodies [introduce] into the life of humans, through the most shameful of all origins and not even through legitimate marriage, him who was about to undertake so much, to instruct so many, and was about to recall so many men from the flood of vices?" Or is it much more probable that the soul [is] assigned to a body by certain hidden reasons (I speak now according to Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus often D mentions)?
A It is likely, therefore, that this soul, being more beneficial to the life of men than many others—not to mention all, lest I seem to be exaggerating—needed a body not only as something superior among human bodies, but as something surpassing them all.
33. Now, if this soul [is] for certain hidden reasons, while not worthy to be included in the body of an irrational animal, is yet not pure enough to occupy the body of a rational animal, it is clothed in a monstrous body, such that reason cannot fully inhabit it—since he who is thus born has a head disproportionate to the rest of the body, and far too small. B Yet another, in this way, takes on a body such that it is, by a little, more rational than the former; and another even more so, as the nature of the body hinders the grasp of reason to a greater or lesser degree. Why, then, should there not be some soul taking on a body altogether marvelous, possessing something in common with men, so that it might be able to live among them, yet also possessing something exceptional, so that the soul might be able to remain untainted by vice? And if one also follows the pronouncements of the physiognomists—whether of Zopyrus, C or Loxus, or Polemon, or whoever else has written such things and claimed to know something wonderful—that all bodies are suited to the characters of the souls, then for one who was about to enter this life in a marvelous way and do great things, there should have been, as Celsus thinks, a body born from Panthera and a woman who had committed adultery? For from such impure unions, there would rather have been born some madman, a plague to men, a teacher of licentiousness, injustice, and the rest of the vices, not D [the one who]...
What sort of things are these that you say, Socrates? As it is likely that those who have practiced gluttonies, insolences, and love of gain, and have not taken heed, are clothed in the form of donkeys and similar wild beasts—the soul being clothed in all manner of forms of animals and plants. For he says: For I was once already a boy, and a girl, And a bush, and a bird, and a bright fish out of the sea.
...a teacher of licentiousness, and injustice, and of the rest of the evils, [rather than]... But to you, Alcibiades, Pericles set over you as a tutor of your servants, one who was the most useless due to his old age, Zopyrus the Thracian.
A and of temperance and justice and the remaining virtues. But, as the prophets also foretold, it was fated that He who bears the name of the thing should be born of a virgin according to the promised sign, indicating that at His birth God would be with men. And it seems appropriate to me, regarding the impersonation of the Jew, to set forth the prophecy of Isaiah, which states that Emmanuel would be born of a virgin; which Celsus did not set forth, whether because he was ignorant of it, though he promises to know everything, or because he read it but deliberately kept silent, so as not to seem to be establishing a case against his own deliberate choice. B The wording is as follows: "And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying: 'Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God, into the depth or into the height.' And Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.' And he said, 'Hear now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to provide a struggle for men, and how do you provide a struggle for the Lord? Therefore the Lord Himself will give to you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel, which is translated: God with us.'" That Celsus, acting wickedly, did not set forth the prophecy is clear to me from the fact that, although he set forth many things from the Gospel according to Matthew, such as the star that rose at the birth of Jesus and other miraculous events, he did not even mention this as a beginning. But if a Jew, quibbling, should say that "Behold a virgin" is not written, but instead of it, "Behold a damsel," we shall say to him that the word *Aalma*, which the Seventy have translated as "virgin," and others as "damsel," lies also, as they say, in Deuteronomy C in reference to a virgin, having this form: "But if there be a young maiden betrothed to a man, and a man find her in a city and lie with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of their city, and they shall be stoned with stones and die: the damsel, because she did not cry out when she was in the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbor's wife." And it is fitting that a virgin be called *Alma*. Many Fathers are concerned about this interpretation, "behold a damsel." He who first blamed Aquila, and at the same time Theodotion, is Irenaeus in book III, chapter 24, where he says: "The interpretation 'behold a damsel,' as Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus have translated it, is not true." From this, the Ebionites say [Jesus] was born of Joseph. Whether Aquila, in order to distort the passage, thus fashioned his version, the most illustrious Montfaucon confesses he does not know, page 49, Preliminary [remarks] to the Hexapla of Origen. It seems likely to him, however, that Aquila deliberately turned away from the word because Christians used this prophecy most especially for the defense of their faith. "Indeed," he says, "nor does he employ the word 'hidden' to express the Hebrew *Alma*, which he desired to use elsewhere; D because perhaps this interpretation expressed a maiden who had remained hidden from the sight of men, and therefore a virgin." There is the word *Alma* in Isaiah, another, *Bethula*, in Deuteronomy. Hence Boherellus concludes that Origen did not know Hebrew. Whether this is true is discussed in the Origenian studies, Book II, chapter 1, number 3.
A Since we should B not appear to rely upon a Hebrew word for those who do not understand whether one should assent to it or not, let us produce a persuasion concerning the fact that the prophet said this man would be born of a virgin, he upon whose birth it is said, "God with us." Come, let us provide the persuasion on the word itself.
The Lord is recorded to have said to Achaz: "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God, into the depth or into the height." C Then follows the sign given, namely: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son." But what sort of sign is it for a young woman who is not a virgin to bear a child? And to which woman is it more fitting to have given birth to Emmanuel, that is, "God with us"—to one who has known a man and has conceived in the custom of women, or to one who has conceived as a pure and undefiled virgin? Surely it is more fitting for this one to bring forth the offspring concerning whom it is said, "God with us."
If anyone should cavil that it was said to Achaz, "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God," we shall ask who it was in the times of Achaz who begat the offspring concerning whom it is said, "Emmanuel," which is, "God with us." If no one is found, it is manifest that what was said to Achaz was said to the house of David; because the Scriptures testify that the Savior according to the flesh was born from the seed of David. D Moreover, it is said that this sign is to be sought "into the depth or into the height," because "he who descended is also he who ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things."
These things I say as having an argument with a Jew who adds faith to the prophecy. But let Celsus, or any of his companions, say with what mind the prophet declares these things or other things written in the prophecies concerning future events, or whether he is a foreteller of things to come or not. For if they were foreknowing of future events, the prophets had the divine Spirit; but if they were ignorant of future events, let him explain what kind of mind he has who so boldly pronounces upon future matters and who carries away the Jews into wonder at himself by his prophecies.
Since we have once arrived at the discussion concerning the prophets, the things we are about to add will be useful not to the Jews only, who believe that they spoke by the divine Spirit, but also to those among the Greeks who are fair-minded. To them, therefore, we say that it must necessarily be admitted that there were prophets among the Jews; for if they were to be kept within the law given to them and to believe in the Creator, just as they had received it, and not to take from the law an occasion [for error].
abandoning it A in favor of the polytheism of the nations. And we must set forth the necessity of this in the following way. “The nations,” as it is written in the Law of the Jews itself, “shall hearken unto divinations and soothsayings,” but to that people it is said, “But unto thee, the Lord thy God hath not given so.” And it is added to this, “A prophet will the Lord thy God raise up for thee from among thy brethren.” Since, therefore, the nations practiced divination, whether by soothsayings, or by omens, or by birds, or by ventriloquists, or by those who profess the art of sacrifice, or even by Chaldean astrologers—all of which were forbidden to the Jews—if the Jews had had no source of knowledge regarding future events, they would have been driven by that very human craving for knowledge of things to come; they would have despised their own [prophets] as having nothing divine in them, and would not have accepted any prophet after Moses, nor would they have written down their words, but, as deserters, they would have passed over to the divinations and oracles of the nations, or would have endeavored to establish something of the kind among themselves. B Therefore, it is nothing strange that their prophets gave oracles even regarding ordinary matters, for the consolation of those who were held by a desire for such things. Of this kind were the prophecies of Samuel concerning the lost asses, and those concerning the sickness of the king’s son mentioned in the third book of Kings. Otherwise, how could those who heralded the Law of the Jews rebuke one who wished to consult the oracles of idols, as Elias is found rebuking Ochozias with these words: “Is it because there is no God in Israel that you go to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Accaron?”
It seems to me, therefore, that it has been reasonably established not only that our Savior was to be born of a virgin, C but also that there were among the Jews prophets D who foretold not only universal matters concerning the future—such as things concerning Christ, and things concerning earthly kingdoms, and things that were to befall Israel, and concerning the nations that were to believe in the Savior, and many other things spoken about Him—but also individual matters, such as where the lost asses of Cis might be found, and the nature of the sickness from which the son of the king of Israel was suffering, or if anything else of such a kind is recorded. Furthermore, it must be said to those Greeks who do not believe in the birth of Jesus from a virgin, that the Creator, in the generation of varied animals, showed that it was possible for Him, had He so willed, to do in the case of others, and even in the case of humans themselves, what He did in the case of one creature. For certain female animals are found that have no union with a male, as those who have written about animals say regarding vultures.
A What is so incredible, then, if God, wishing to send a divine teacher to the human race, has caused the Word of the one to be born to be brought forth in a different manner than the seminal word of males toward females? And even according to the Greeks themselves, not all men were born of a man and a woman. For if the world was created, as it pleased many of the Greeks, it was necessary for the first men not to be born from physical intercourse, but rather from the earth, the seminal reasons being established in the earth. This, I think, is a more paradoxical thing than for Jesus to be born in the same manner as other men, at least in part. B But since we are dealing with the Greeks, it would not be alien to use Greek histories as well, so that we might not appear to be the only ones to rely on such a paradoxical account. For some did not hesitate to write, when they were recounting not ancient and heroic deeds, but things that happened yesterday and the day before, that Plato was born of Perictione, and that Ariston was forbidden from approaching her until she brought forth him who was sown by Apollo. But these are truly myths, which prompted the invention of such a thing about a man whom they considered to have greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and to have received the beginning of the formation of his body from superior and more divine seeds, as if it were fitting for those who are greater than men to be [born] differently. But since Celsus introduced the C Jew conversing with Jesus, and mocking (as he thinks) the pretense of His birth from a Virgin, and bringing forward the Greek myths about Danae and Melanippe and Auge and Antiope, [we note that] this creature preserves the succession of its kind without intercourse.
[Regarding] the sixth book, number eight. However, among profane authors Plato's mother is called Perictione. Aelian, lib. x, cap. 21, *Varia Hist.*; Jerome, lib. i *Adv. Jovin.*; Apuleius, lib. *De dogmat. Platonis*; Suidas in *Plato*; Laertius in *Plato*: Speusippus in *the Funeral Feast of Plato*, and Clearchus in *the Eulogy of Plato*, and Anaxilides in the second book *On Philosophers*, say that there was a rumor in Athens that Ariston, while attempting to force himself upon Perictione, was unsuccessful; and when he refrained from applying force, the appearance of Apollo was presented to her: wherefore she preserved herself chaste from any embrace until childbirth. Apuleius, Jerome, and Suidas, *ibidem*. Plutarch, *Symp.* lib. viii, quæst. 1, says that Ariston heard a voice which forbade him from intercourse for ten months. See the same, if you have the time, for further inquiry. D *Hexaem.*, cap. 20: "We have spoken of the widowhood of birds, and that this virtue first arose among them. Let us now speak of chastity, which is indeed asserted to exist in many creatures to such an extent that it can even be detected in vultures. For it is denied that vultures indulge in copulation, and associate in a certain conjugal usage and the lot of a nuptial bond, and thus conceive without any male seed, and bring forth without any union, and that those born of them reach a great age of long life, so that the series of their life extends to a hundred years; nor does the end of a short life easily overtake them." What do they say, those who are accustomed to mock our mysteries, when they hear that a virgin has given birth, and deem the delivery of an unmarried woman, whose modesty no custom of a man had violated, to be impossible? Is it considered impossible in the mother of God, which is not denied to be possible in vultures? The bird gives birth without a male, and [Celsus] does not refute it; and because Mary gave birth while betrothed to a man, they make it a question of her modesty. Do we not perceive that the Lord, from nature itself, provided many examples beforehand, by which he might prove the beauty of the incarnation undertaken, and establish its truth?
A ...as the Greeks have invented concerning Danae, Melanippe, Auge, and Antiope; this is the act of a buffoon, not of a man writing seriously.
38. Furthermore, from the Gospel according to Matthew, he B takes the history concerning Jesus’ migration into Egypt. But denying faith to the miracles then performed and to the warning given by the angel, and not even inquiring whether this departure from Judea and flight into Egypt might indicate some mystery, he fabricates something else. While giving a sort of assent to the miraculous powers which Jesus performed—by which he persuaded many to follow him as the Christ—he wishes to slander them as having been done by magic, not by divine power. For he says that, having been raised in obscurity and having hired himself out as a laborer in Egypt, where he became acquainted with certain miraculous powers, he returned from there, and on account of those powers, he proclaimed himself to be God. But I do not understand how a magician could have taught men to think, in all their actions, that God would one day be the judge of all, and thus to have instructed his own disciples, whom he intended to use as ministers of his teaching. For would those disciples, instructed in this way to perform miracles, have attracted their hearers, or did they perform no miracles? Now, to say that they performed no miracles at all, but that, without any power of speech—similar to the wisdom of Greek dialectic—they simply entrusted themselves to teach a new doctrine wherever they went, is completely irrational. For in whom were they trusting when they taught the word and introduced innovations? If they did indeed perform miracles, C what plausibility is there in the idea that magicians would have exposed themselves to such great dangers in order to introduce a doctrine that forbids the art of magic?
39. As for the things that have been said not seriously, but merely for the sake of provoking laughter, they do not seem worth refuting. Things of this sort are these: "Was the mother of Jesus beautiful, and was that why God—whose nature does not allow him to be captivated by the love of a human form—embraced her? Or is it not likely that God would have fallen in love with her, given that she was neither wealthy nor royal, since nobody knew her, not even her neighbors?" The trifler proceeds to say: "And she was not saved by divine power or convincing argument so that, being hated by the carpenter, she was expelled." "Therefore," he says, "none of these things D pertain to the kingdom of God." Do you not seem to hear those who insult certain people at street corners, without any regard for honesty or decency?
40. Following these things, taking from the Gospel according to Matthew—and perhaps also from the other Gospels—that which concerns...
the A dove which descended upon the Savior when He was baptized by John, he wishes to have it held as a fiction, this which is said. And by disparaging, as he thought, the history concerning the birth of our Savior from the Virgin, he does not set forth the subsequent things in order; for anger and hatred possess no order. But those who are carried away by such passions pour out against those they detest whatever first comes to their lips, since such emotions do not permit them to prudently arrange the heads of their accusations in their proper place. For if he had preserved order, having taken the Gospel—the subject of which he had decided to attack—he would have proceeded from the refutation of the first history to the refutation of the next, and so on to the rest. But instead, that Celsus who boasts that he understands all our affairs, after the birth from the Virgin, attacks the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism; then he calumniates the prophecies concerning the advent of our Savior; then he returns to the star which appeared at the birth of Jesus, as it is written, and to the magi who came from the East to worship the child. Thus, you yourself, upon unfolding his book, will find many things confused and heaped together without any order. And this will be evidence to those who know how to seek out and preserve order, with what rash bravado he titled his book *The True Word*, which none of the learned philosophers ever did. For Plato B says that it is not the act of a prudent man to assert anything dogmatically concerning such obscure matters; and Chrysippus often, having set forth the arguments that moved him, sends us to those who might speak better than he. This man, then, wiser than both these and the rest of the Greeks, consistent with his claim to know everything, titled his book *The True Word*.
41. But lest we should be thought to intentionally skip his chapters because we lack a response, we have decided, according to our ability, to refute each of the points raised by him, caring not for the sequence and connection in the nature of things, but for the order of those things inscribed in his book. Let us see, therefore, what he even says when he disparages that which was seen bodily by the Savior—the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. C The Jew is still addressing Jesus, whom we confess to be our Lord, saying: "You say that while you were being washed by John, there flew in from the air a phantom of a bird. Who," the Jew continues to inquire, "who with any faith..." D
A in himself testifies that he saw it? Who, apart from you and those who were punished with you, heard the voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God?"
42. Before we begin our defense, it must be stated that to establish almost any history, even if it is true, as having actually occurred, and to produce a firm conviction regarding it, is extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible. For imagine someone arguing that the Trojan War never B happened, precisely because it is impossible to attach to the account the fact that a certain Achilles was born of the sea-goddess Thetis and [of] the man Peleus, or Sarpedon of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus of Ares, or Aeneas of Venus. By what argument could we establish such a history? How would we extricate ourselves from the myths that have been woven into the accepted belief that a war was truly waged at Troy between the Greeks and the Trojans? Suppose, also, that someone rejects what is told about Oedipus and Jocasta and their children, Eteocles and Polynices, because the mention of a half-maiden Sphinx has been inserted into the account. Do we have any way of demonstrating that those C histories are true? The same must be thought regarding the Epigoni, even though nothing similar may have been added to the narrative, or regarding the return of the Heracleidae, or countless other [events]. Whoever, therefore, reads histories with an open mind, yet does not wish to be deceived by them, will decide which [accounts] are to be believed, which are to be interpreted as allegories according to the intent of those who invented such things, and which are unworthy of belief as having been composed for the sake of flattery. It seemed necessary to us to preoccupy our readers with this regarding the whole history of Jesus Christ—not that we might goad the more acute [among them] toward a bare and irrational faith, but that we might advise those who are about to read this history that they need a candid mind, diligent investigation, and—if it is permissible so to speak—an introduction into the mind of the writers, so that it may be discovered with what intent each thing was written. D
43. We shall say, therefore, first, that if the one who disbelieves in the phantom of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove were an Epicurean, or a follower of Democritus, or a Peripatetic, he might have [some] ground...
A for the speech attributed to the person introduced. But the all-wise Celsus does not notice that he is attributing these words to a Jew, who believes many things from the prophetic Scriptures that are even more paradoxical than what is narrated concerning the form of the dove. For one might say to the Jew, who disbelieves in the phantom and thinks to accuse it as a fabrication: "Whence, my good man, could you prove that the 5 Lord God said to Adam, or to Eve, or to Cain, or to Noah, or to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob, the things that are recorded as having been said by Him to these men?" And that I may compare history with this history, I would say to the Jew: "Even your Ezekiel recorded, saying: 'The heavens were opened, and I saw a vision of God,' which, after narrating, he adds to it: 'This is the vision of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And He said to me.'" B For if the things recorded about Jesus are false, because we do not have, as you suppose, the means to demonstrate them clearly—since they were seen and heard by Him alone, and, as you appear to have observed, by one of those who were punished with Him—how much more admissible would it be to say they are mere portents? C
A wondrous thing also occurs in this region, as well as in the vast interior territory and in the land beyond the Syrtis. For at certain times, and especially during calm weather, concentrations are seen in the air exhibiting the forms of various living creatures; some of these stay still, while others move, and sometimes flee, and at other times pursue. And since they exhibit a monstrous size, they cause amazing astonishment and terror to those who are inexperienced. They pursue men, and when they overtake them, they envelop their bodies, cold and vibrating, so that strangers, not being accustomed to them, are struck with fear. An absurdity also lies in the fact that [the gods] send them not to the best and most prudent, but to whoever happens to be there. But with the cause from God taken away, no other reasonable cause appears. D
A And as you think you have observed, even by one of those punished; why should we not also say that Ezekiel acted the part of a storyteller when he said, "The heavens were opened," and what follows? But if Isaiah also says, "I saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up; and the seraphim stood round about him; six wings to the one, and six wings to the one," and the rest; whence B is it clear that he truly saw it? For you have believed, O Jew, that these things are truthful, and not only that they were seen by the prophet through a more divine Spirit, but that they were also spoken and written down by him. To whom then is it more worthy to give credence—to one who says that the heavens were opened to him, and that he heard a voice, or saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, as Isaiah and Ezekiel say, or to Jesus? For no work of such magnitude is found in the case of those [prophets]; but the noble deeds of Jesus have occurred not only during those times when he walked among men clothed in a body, but even until now the power of Jesus is at work, bringing about the conversion and improvement of those who believe in God through him. A clear proof that these things come to pass by his power is, as he himself says and as experience confirms, that while laborers to work at the harvest of souls are entirely lacking, so many souls are nevertheless brought and gathered into the threshing-floors of God, which are the Churches, everywhere.
And I say these things to the Jew, not because I, a Christian, do not believe Ezekiel and Isaiah, but because I am pleading from those things commonly believed by us, C that he is by far more worthy to be believed than they, when he says he saw such things, and, as is likely, transmitted to the disciples the vision he saw, and the voice he heard. Someone else might perhaps say that not all those who wrote down the account about the appearance of the dove and the voice from heaven heard Jesus describe these things, but that the Spirit who taught Moses the more ancient history, which began from the creation of the world down to Abraham, his father, this same Spirit also taught the writers of the Gospel the wonder that occurred at the time of Jesus' baptism. And he who is adorned with the gift called the "word of wisdom" will also explain the reason for the opening of the heavens, and for the form of the dove, and why the Holy Spirit appeared to Jesus in the form of this animal and no other. But it is not required by our present argument to explain this; for our purpose is to show that Celsus was wrong D to ascribe to the Jew, with such arguments, the claim that Ezekiel feigned it when he says the heavens were opened.
44. Yet I do not thereby abrogate the testimony of Ezekiel and Isaiah; for I am a Christian; but I used those things which are believed together with me to persuade men that Jesus is more worthy of belief than the prophets, since he told, and as is credible, narrated to his disciples that he saw such things and heard the voice. But perhaps someone else, who has committed to writing the account concerning the form of the dove and the heavenly voice, might say that they were not all present when he related these things to his disciples; but that the same Spirit who taught Moses the history far older than himself, and all that pertains from the creation of the world down to Abraham, the ancestor of the Jewish race, revealed to the writers of the Gospels the prodigy that appeared at the time of Jesus' baptism. Why the heavens were opened, why the form of a dove was seen, and why the Holy Spirit made Himself visible to Jesus in the shape of a dove and no other creature, shall be explained by him who is adorned with the gift called the "word of wisdom." It is not our business to explain these things. For this has been our purpose, to show that Celsus has been led astray.
regarding matters A of fact, having happened according to probability rather than what was believed by him.
45. I remember, moreover, once having a discussion with some of those among the Jews whom they call wise, many being present to act as judges, I used this speech: "Tell me, sirs, when two persons have come to the human race, about whom strange things and things exceeding human nature have been written—I speak of Moses, your legislator, who wrote about himself, and Jesus, our teacher, who left behind nothing written about himself, B but who is witnessed to by his disciples in the Gospels—what is this distinction, that Moses is believed as a truth-teller, although the Egyptians accuse him of being a sorcerer and appear to believe that he performed his mighty works by magic, while Jesus is disbelieved because you accuse him? For a nation testifies to both: the Jews to Moses, and the Christians—not denying the prophecy of Moses, but rather proving from it the things concerning Jesus—accept that the things C written about him by his disciples are true and are wonderful things. And if you demand of us an account regarding Jesus, give an account regarding Moses, who came before him, and then we shall give one regarding him. But if you hold back and refuse to prove why you believe him, for the present we shall imitate you and remain silent regarding our arguments. Nevertheless, admit that you have no proofs regarding Moses, and listen to ours regarding Jesus taken from the Law and the Prophets. And, what is truly wonderful, the very arguments D that the Law and the Prophets provide us regarding Jesus serve to demonstrate that both Moses and the prophets were prophets of God."
46. Furthermore, the Law and the prophets are filled with unusual events, which are of almost the same nature as what is written about the appearance of the dove and the voice sent from heaven when Jesus was being baptized. I think that the Holy Spirit, who was seen at that time in the form of a dove, serves to prove the miracles of Jesus, which Celsus, in his attempt to slander them, claims were done by him through arts which he had learned among the Egyptians. Nor will I use only those, but also, as is fitting, those which the apostles of Jesus performed. For they could not have induced those to whom they were delivering new doctrines and new institutions—by abandoning ancestral institutions—without miracles and prodigies.
A And even now there remain among Christians some traces of that Holy Spirit, who appeared in the form of a dove. They cast out demons, they perform many cures, and they foresee the future according to the will of the Word. And even if Celsus, or the Jew whom he has introduced, might mock what is to be said, it shall be said nonetheless: that many have come to the Christian religion almost against their will, some spirit having suddenly turned their reasoning faculty from hating the Word to dying for it, and having presented visions to them, whether awake or asleep. For we have recorded many such things; and if we were to write them down, even though we ourselves have been eye-witnesses of these, we would offer a generous subject for laughter to the unbelievers, who—thinking that we have fabricated these things just as they suspect—would judge that these too were invented by us. But God is a witness of our conscience, which desires to confirm the divine teaching of Jesus not through false reports, but through various and evident proofs. B But since it is a Jew who doubts whether the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, it must be said to him: Who is this who says in Isaiah, "And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit"? In which, the passage being ambiguous—whether the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit—the latter is the true interpretation. And since the Savior was sent, first, and then the Holy Spirit, in order that what was said by the prophet might be fulfilled; and since it was necessary that the fulfillment of the prophecy be known also to those who came after: for this reason the disciples of Jesus recorded what had happened.
I would have liked to say to Celsus, who has personified the Jew as having somehow accepted John as a Baptist baptizing Jesus, that one who lived not long after the time of John and Jesus recorded that John had been a Baptist, who baptized for the remission of sins. C For in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who received baptism. The same man, although he did not believe in Jesus as the Christ, while
47. Furthermore, we would wish to remind Celsus that since the Jew whom he introduces admits as much—that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist—a writer who lived close to the age of John and Jesus made mention of John and of the baptism conferred by him for the remission of sins. For Josephus, in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, testifies that John was a Baptist, and promised that to those who received baptism, their sins would be washed away. The same man, although he did not acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, yet D [marginal note omitted regarding source variants]
say—though he ought to have said it—that the plot against Jesus was the cause of these calamities for the people, since they killed the Christ who had been prophesied. But, as though unwillingly and yet not far from the truth, he says that these things happened to the Jews in vengeance for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus called Christ, because they had killed a man who was most righteous. Now this James is the one whom Paul, a true disciple of Jesus, says he saw as the brother of the Lord, not so much because of their blood relationship or their shared upbringing, as because of his character and his teaching. If, then, he says that the events concerning the desolation of Jerusalem happened because of James, why is it not more reasonable to state that this happened because of Jesus the Christ? His divinity is witnessed to by so many churches of people who, having turned away from the flood of vices, dedicate themselves entirely to the Creator, and direct everything toward pleasing Him.
B 48. Even if the Jew does not defend himself regarding Ezekiel and Isaiah, because we share with him the accounts of the heavens opening to Jesus and the voice that was heard by Him, and we find similar things recorded in Ezekiel and in Isaiah or in some other prophet, we shall certainly, as far as lies within our power, maintain our case, saying this: just as it is believed by all who admit a Providence that in many cases, through dreams, things are impressed upon persons—whether clearly or obscurely—some being divine realities, and some regarding future events pertaining to this life; so too it is not absurd that, by the same power by which it occurs through a dream, visions are also inscribed during the waking state, which are of benefit either to the person to whom they are granted, or to those to whom he is about to recount them. And just as in a dream we seem to hear with struck ears and to see with our eyes, even though neither ears nor eyes, but only the mind, have been moved; C so it would not be absurd if the same thing had occurred to the prophets, as often as they are read to have seen some miraculous things, or to have heard the words of the Lord, or to have perceived the heavens opened.
If that is true, what becomes of Origen and Eusebius, who claim that Josephus did not ascribe the calamities of the Jews to the death of Jesus Christ, but to the death of James? D Josephus is the Hebrew philosopher who wrote these things, having said this as well: that from the time the Jews crucified Jesus, who was a good and righteous man—if indeed one ought to call such a man a human being and not God—pain has not ceased from the land of Judea. And he writes of John... [regarding the] war, and through him he shows that there is no longer a city that was once the metropolis, and he weaves together long speeches of praise regarding him. And he [supposes] that the wise among the Jews judged this to be the cause, that the ruling faculty [is fashioned] toward the benefit of the one in whom it is fashioned.
A Nor do I think it necessary that this sensible heaven or its body should have been cleft, in order for Ezekiel to have been able to write these things. See then whether it is not also in this way that those who read the Gospel with discernment ought to understand what is narrated concerning the Savior; even though this may be a scandal to those who are simpler, who, on account of the simplicity they possess, disturb this world and tear apart the compact body of the whole heaven. But he who examines such things more deeply will say that there is a certain general Divine sense in Scripture, which the blessed man alone knows how to find, as Solomon says: “Thou shalt find a Divine sense” (Prov. II, 5); and since there are species of this sense—sight, which is by nature fitted to contemplate things superior to bodies, such as the cherubim and seraphim; hearing, which catches voices other than those formed in the air; taste, to which the living bread, which has descended from heaven and gives life to the world, has a flavor (John VI, 33); thus also smell, which perceives such things as that of which Paul speaks when he says he is to God the sweet fragrance of Christ (II Cor. II, 15); and touch, according to which John says he has handled with his hands the Word of life (I John I, 1)—the blessed prophets, having found this Divine sense, and seeing Divinely, and hearing Divinely, and tasting likewise, and smelling (if I may so call it) with a sense that is not sensory, and touching the Word with faith, so that an emanation of Him came unto them, bestowing healing upon them, thus B saw what they write they have seen, and heard what they say they have heard, and experienced things similar to these, just as they write that they ate the beginning of the book that was offered to them (Ezech. III, 2). Thus also Isaac smelled the odor of his son’s more Divine garments, and bestowed this spiritual blessing: “Behold, the odor of my son is as the odor of a full field which the Lord hath blessed” (Gen. XXVII, 27). Similarly to these, and more intelligibly than sensibly, Jesus touched the leper, that He might cleanse him (as I suppose) in two ways: delivering him not only, as the many hear it, from the sensible leprosy by a sensible touch, but also from the other leprosy by a truly Divine touch. So therefore John also testified, when he said: “I beheld the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me: Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, the same is He who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (John I, 32 sqq.). And indeed the heavens were opened to Jesus; and at that time, besides John, no one is recorded to have seen the heavens opened. But the Savior, predicting to His own apostles that they too would see the heavens opened, said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, you shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (John I, 51). Thus also Paul was caught up into the third heaven when he had already seen that former one opened, as being a disciple of Jesus. But to explain why He said C
“Whether in the body, I know not; whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth,” is not the work of the present time.
Furthermore, I shall add to the argument that even the things which Celsus supposes—that Jesus himself told his disciples about the opening of the heavens and the Holy Spirit descending upon him in the form of a dove at the Jordan—are things for which the Scripture provides no evidence, in that it does not show that He himself said He had seen this. A And that noble fellow did not perceive that it is not in accordance with the command given to those disciples at the vision on the mountain, “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead,” for Him to have told the disciples what was seen and heard by John at the Jordan. Indeed, one can see in Jesus’ character that he everywhere avoided self-laudation, and for this reason He said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” And because He avoided self-laudation, and wished to show that He was Christ by His works rather than by His words, for this reason the Jews say unto Him, “If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.”
B Since, however, it is a Jew who in Celsus’ work speaks to Jesus concerning the things about the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and says, “Besides, you say this, and introduce someone who was punished with you,” it is necessary to show that this too has been inappropriately attributed to the Jewish persona. For the Jews do not associate John with Jesus, nor do they join John’s punishment with Jesus’ punishment. And in this, therefore, he who boasts of knowing all things is refuted, for he did not know what words should have been assigned to the persona of a Jew addressing Jesus.
49. After this, I know not why, he passes over the greatest C argument by which those things that pertain to Jesus are most confirmed—namely, that He was foretold by the prophets among the Jews, by Moses and those after him, or even before Moses; he omits it, as I think, because he was unable to answer the argument, since neither the Jews nor any heresy anywhere has denied that Christ was foretold. Perhaps he did not even know the prophecies concerning Jesus. For he would not, if he had refuted what is said by Christians—that many prophets foretold the coming of the Savior—have attributed to the persona of the Jew things which would have been more fitting for a Samaritan or a Sadducee to say; and that fictitious Jew would not have said, D “But my prophet once said in Jerusalem that the Son of God would come, the judge of the pious and the punisher of the unrighteous.” For it was not one single prophet who prophesied the things concerning Christ. Even if only those of Moses...
were received by the Samaritans or Sadducees, they might claim that Christ was prophesied in them; yet certainly this prophecy was not uttered in Jerusalem, the name of which city did not even exist in the age of Moses. A Would that all the calumniators of our doctrine were in such ignorance, not only of the facts, but even of the literal text of Scripture, so that their discourse might not have the least probability, which could upset—I do not say the faith, but the little faith—of those who believe but are not firm for a time! Nor, indeed, would a Jew admit that any prophet said that the Son of God would come; for what they say is that the Christ of God will come. And they frequently ask us immediately about the Son of God, as if no such being existed, nor had been prophesied. And we do not say this, that the Son of God is not prophesied, but that it is not fittingly ascribed to the Jewish position, which does not admit this, to say: “My prophet in Jerusalem once said that the Son of God would come.”
B Then, as if only this had been prophesied about Christ, that he would be the judge of the pious and the punisher of the unrighteous, and that the prophets had been altogether silent about his birth, about the suffering which he would endure at the hands of the Jews, about his resurrection, and about the miraculous powers which he would perform, he says: “Who more than you, or ten thousand others who have lived after the prophecy, are those concerning whom these things were prophesied?” And I do not know how, wishing to attribute to others the possibility of being suspected to be those who were prophesied, he says that “some are fanatics, and others are impostors, who claim to have come down from heaven as the Son of God.” For we have not heard that such things are admitted to have happened among the Jews. We must therefore first reply that many prophets predicted the things concerning Christ in many ways: some through riddles, some through allegory, or in another way, and some even in plain words. And since in what follows he says, in the personation of the Jew addressing those from the people who have believed, that the prophecies referring to this can be applied also to other matters—speaking C of this cleverly and wickedly—we shall set forth a few from many, regarding which anyone who wishes may say whatever is compelling for their overthrow, and which is able to easily turn those who believe away from the faith.
It has indeed been said regarding the place of his birth, that the leader will come out of Bethlehem, in this manner: “And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrath, are not the least to be among the thousands of Judah; for from you will come forth to me one to be a ruler in Israel; and his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” D Now this prophecy is not to be applied to any… 51. And regarding the place where it is said he will be born, it is said that he will come from Bethlehem, he who was to be the prince. The words of the prophet are: “And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, are not the least to be in the thousands of Judah. For from you shall come forth to me one who is to be a ruler in Israel, and his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” This prophecy 367 to no…
fanatic, no impostor, no one of those who claim to have come from heaven, as Celsus’s Jew says, unless he is shown to have been born in Bethlehem, or, as someone else might say, to be coming from Bethlehem to rule the people. And if anyone, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history of Jesus written by his disciples in the Gospels, wishes to be convinced from elsewhere that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, let him consider that, in accordance with the history of his birth narrated in the Gospel, the cave in Bethlehem B is shown where he was born, and the manger in the cave where he was wrapped in swaddling clothes. And this site is famous in those parts and acknowledged even by the enemies of the faith—that in this cave was born the Jesus who is worshipped and admired by Christians. I believe, indeed, that before the coming of Christ, the chief priests and scribes of the people, because of the clarity and evidence of the prophecy, taught that Christ would be born in Bethlehem. Indeed, this rumor had spread among many of the Jews; whence it is written that Herod, inquiring of the chief priests and scribes of the people, heard from them that Christ would be born in Bethlehem of Judea, which was the homeland of David. C Furthermore, it is said in the Gospel according to John that the Jews said that Christ would come “from Bethlehem, where David was.” But after the coming of Christ, those who labored to overthrow the belief about him—as though it had been prophesied from of old concerning his birth—removed such teaching from the people, acting like brothers to those soldiers who guarded the tomb, those eyewitnesses of the resurrection, who to this report of the observers said, “Say that His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep. And if this comes to the hearing of the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”
D It will suffice for me to have noted from the words of Matthew II, 1 and Luke II, 4 that such a controversy is extremely difficult to resolve. See how the most learned interpreters explain Joshua V, 13, in Jericho, and X, 10, in Gibeon, X, 17, in Makkedah. Nevertheless, led by the authority of Justin Martyr, who was a Samaritan and not far removed from the borders of Bethlehem, I incline to his opinion, namely, that Christ was born in a certain cave near the village. Epiphanius says, in heresy 20, that Christ was also circumcised in this cave.
A 52. For contention and prejudice have the power to make men refuse to look even at things that are manifest, so that they may not abandon those dogmas which have somehow become customary to them, and which have colored their soul. And it is much easier for a man to abandon habits concerning other matters, even if he is strongly attached to them, than those concerning dogmas. Yet not even those other things do those accustomed to them easily overlook; thus, those who have become attached to them do not easily desire to abandon homes, or cities, or villages, or familiar people. This, therefore, has been the cause for many of the Jews at that time to resist the clarity of the prophecies and of the miracles which Jesus performed, and which it is recorded he suffered. But that human nature is subject to such a state will be clear to those who discern that those who have once been captivated by the traditions of their fathers and fellow citizens, even if these are most disgraceful and foolish, are not easily moved. For one would not quickly persuade an Egyptian to despise the things he has received from his fathers, so as not to consider B this irrational animal a god, or to guard until death against tasting the meat of this animal. Therefore, if we have examined such a subject at greater length, and have gone through the matters concerning Bethlehem and the prophecy about it, we believe we have done so necessarily, apologizing to those who might say that, if the prophecies concerning Jesus among the Jews were so manifest, why, when he came, did they not assent to his teaching and change over to the better things shown by Jesus? Let no one reproach us or those who believe with a similar reproach, seeing that the reasons brought forward by those who have learned to advocate them concerning the faith in Jesus are not to be despised.
If there is also a need for a second prophecy that appears clear to us concerning Jesus, we will set forth that which was recorded many years before the appearance of Jesus by Moses, who says that Jacob, when departing from this life, prophesied to each of his sons, and said to Judah, along with others: «A ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until there come those things which are stored up for him.» C But anyone reading this prophecy, which is in truth much older than Moses, even if some of the unbelievers might suppose it was spoken by Moses—he would be amazed at how Moses was able to predict that those who would rule the Jews, there being twelve tribes among them, [would arise] from the tribe of Judah, from whence the name of the Jews...
D 53. If there is a need for another prophecy, which clearly appears to us to pertain to Jesus, we shall set forth that which was written many years before Jesus arrived by Moses, who recounts that Jacob, when his life's end was approaching, prophesied to each of his sons, and among other things, said to Judah this: «A ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until the things that are stored up for him shall come.» One who reads this prophecy, which, although in reality it is older than Moses, an unbeliever might perhaps suspect was uttered by Moses—this will first be a matter for admiration: how Moses, whereas there are twelve tribes of the Jews, could have predicted that those who would govern the people would arise from the tribe of Judah, from whence the name of the Jews...
A is derived. The candid reader of this prediction will also admire how, after he had said that the princes and leaders of the people would arise from the tribe of Judah, he set a limit to that power with these words: "A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until there come those things which are stored up for him; and he is the expectation of the Gentiles." For he has come to whom those things were stored up, the Christ of God, the prince of the promises of God. He alone, as is manifest, was the expectation of the Gentiles, not only of those who lived before him, but also—I will say it boldly—of those who lived after him. For people from all the nations have believed in God through him, and, according to what was said by Isaiah, the Gentiles have hoped in his name, he having said: "In his name shall the Gentiles hope."
And it is he who said to those who were in bonds (for there is no one who is not bound by the chains of his own sins): "Go forth"; and to those who were in ignorance: "Come into the light." For these things had been foretold in this way: "I have given you for a covenant of the nations, to raise up the earth and to possess the dissipated inheritances, saying to those who are in bonds: Go forth; and to those who are in darkness: Reveal yourselves." And in his advent one can see, because of those throughout the world who believe in simplicity, that this has been fulfilled: "They shall feed on all the roads, and their pasture shall be on all the paths."
54. Since Celsus, who professes to understand everything about the Word, reproaches the Savior C because, while he was suffering, the Father did not bring him aid, nor could he himself find aid, we must reply that his passion was foretold along with the reason for it—namely, that it was for the benefit of men that he should die for them, and endure the stripe of being condemned. It was also foretold that there would be those among the Gentiles, among whom the prophets had not appeared, who would recognize him, and that it would be said that he would be seen among men with an appearance that would seem contemptible to them. Thus the prophetic words run: "Behold, my servant shall understand, and he shall be exalted, and glorified, and shall be lifted up very high. As many shall be astonished at thee, so shall thy appearance be inglorious from among men, and thy glory from among the sons of men. So shall many Gentiles marvel at him, and kings shall shut their mouths; because they to whom it had not been announced concerning him shall see, and those who have not heard shall understand. Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We have announced him as a child before him, as a root in a thirsty ground. D He has no appearance, nor glory; and we beheld him, and he had no appearance, nor beauty; but..."
his appearance is dishonored and failing before all men. A man placed in a plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity; because his face is turned away, despised and not esteemed. He carries our sins, and suffers for us; and we accounted him to be in labor, and in a plague, and in affliction; but he was wounded for our sins, and was made weak for our iniquities. The discipline of our peace was upon him, and by his bruise we were healed. All we as sheep have gone astray; the man in his way has gone astray, and the Lord delivered him over to our sins, and he, because he was afflicted, does not open his mouth. [As a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before him that shears him, so he does not open his mouth.] In his humiliation his judgment was taken away. And who shall declare his generation? Because his life is taken from the earth, through the iniquities of my people he was led to death. B
I remember once, during a discussion with those called wise among the Jews, I made use of these prophecies. To these the Jew said that these things were prophesied as being about one single chosen people, and one that had come into the dispersion, and had been stricken, that many proselytes might be made by the pretext of the Jews being scattered among the many C nations; and thus he interpreted the passage, "Your appearance shall be dishonored by men," and the passage, "They to whom it was not announced concerning him, shall see," and the passage, "A man placed in a plague." Much was said then in the discussion, however, to refute the point that they do not reasonably apply these things, which were prophesied about some one individual, to the whole people. I would ask, whose person is it that says, "He carries our sins, and suffers for us," and, "But he was wounded for our sins, and was made weak for our iniquities," and whose person was it that said, "By his bruise we were healed"? For clearly those who had become involved in sins, and were healed through the Savior having suffered, whether they be from that people or from the nations, they say these things before the prophet who foresaw them and who, by the Holy Spirit, gave them a dramatic persona. But we especially thought to press them with the quoted D phrase, "Through the iniquities of my people he was led to death." For if the people are, according to them, those who are prophesied about, how is it said that he was led to death through the iniquities of the people of God, unless he is someone other than the people of God? And who is this, if not Jesus Christ, "by whose bruise we were healed," those of us who believe in him, "having put off from ourselves the principalities and powers, and having put them to an open shame on the tree"? To explain each of the things in the prophecy and to leave nothing undiscussed is not for this present time. These things, however, to the rest.
have been spoken at greater length, as I think, necessarily, on account of the B statement of the Jew provided in Celsus.
56. It escaped both Celsus and the Jew with him—and all who have not believed in Jesus—that the prophecies declare there are two advents of Christ: the first, humble and subject to human infirmities, C that while dwelling among men, Christ might teach the way that leads to God, and might leave no person any place for excusing themselves on the grounds of ignorance of the future judgment; the second, glorious and solely divine, having nothing of human infirmity mingled with his divinity. It would be long to bring forward the prophecies. It shall suffice here to adduce the words from the forty-fourth Psalm, in the title of which, among other things, it is read: *A Song for the Beloved*, where he is evidently called God: D "Grace is poured forth upon thy lips, therefore God hath blessed thee forever. Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, in thy beauty and thy splendor; and bend thy bow, and proceed prosperously, and reign, because of truth and meekness and justice, and thy right hand shall guide thee wonderfully. Thy arrows are sharp, O mighty one; peoples shall fall under thee in the heart of the enemies of the King." Pay close attention to what follows, where he is proclaimed as God: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a rod of equity is the rod of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Observe that the prophet, addressing God, whose throne is for ever and ever, and whose rod of equity is the rod of his kingdom, says that this same God was anointed by God, who was his God; and that he was anointed because, above his fellows, he loved justice and hated iniquity. I remember that I once caused much distress to a Jew who was reckoned wise among his people; and when he had greatly twisted himself, he at length said what I ought to have expected from a Jew, namely: that it is written concerning the God of the universe, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a rod of equity is the rod of thy kingdom"; but concerning Christ, "Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee," and what follows.
57. Furthermore, the Jew says to the Savior in Celsus: "If you say this, that every man who is born according to divine providence is a son of God, in what do you differ from others?" To which we shall reply that he is indeed a son of God, whoever, as Paul teaches, is not led by fear, but embraces virtue for its own sake; but this one differs by a great and wide margin from those who are called sons of God on account of virtue, as one who is
A a fountain and principle of such things. And the text of Paul is as follows: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." B And some will also refute—as the Jew in Celsus says—countless people, saying that those things which were prophesied concerning Jesus were meant to be taken regarding themselves. We do not know, therefore, if Celsus knew of any who, while they were in this life, desired to do the same things that Jesus did, and to proclaim themselves sons of God or the power of God. But since we examine the things according to their types with a love of truth, we shall say that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews before the birth of Jesus, who called himself a certain great man; and when he had died, those who had been deceived by him were scattered. And after him, in the days of the census, when it seems Jesus was born, a certain Judas the Galilean drew many people away from the Jewish nation, as one who was wise and an innovator of something. But when he also paid the penalty, his teaching was abolished, having remained among very few and very obscure people. And after the times of Jesus, a certain Samaritan, Dositheus, C also wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by Moses; and he seemed to have gained some over to his own teaching. But the statement recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, said very wisely by Gamaliel, is not irrational to bring forward to show how those men were strangers to the promise, being neither sons of God nor powers of His; whereas Christ Jesus was truly the Son of God. And Gamaliel said there that, "If this counsel and this work be of men, it will come to nothing," just as the things of those men came to nothing after their death; "but if it be of God, you cannot overthrow this teaching of his, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God." Simon the Samaritan Magus also wished to lead some away by his magic arts. And at that time he deceived them; but now there are not, I think, thirty Dositheans D to be found in the entire world. And perhaps
I have said more than there are in reality A. There are very few in Palestine; but nowhere else in the world is his name found in that glory which he wished to spread about himself. For among those where it is mentioned, it is mentioned from the Acts of the Apostles; and it is the Christians who say these things about him, and the manifest reality has testified that Simon was nothing divine.
58. After this, the Jew in Celsus, instead of the Magi in the Gospel, says that Jesus, moved by his birth, came to adore him while he was still an infant as God; and that they reported this to Herod the tetrarch; and that he, having sent them, killed those who were born at the same time, thinking to destroy him along with them, so that he might ensure he did not reign after having lived for a sufficient time. B Observe, therefore, in this the error of the man who does not distinguish Magi from Chaldeans, nor does he notice how different the professions of both are, and therefore he adulterates the evangelical Scripture. I do not know for what reason he passes over in silence that which impelled the Magi, nor does he say that the star was seen by them in the East, as it is written. Let us see, therefore, what must be answered to these things. We believe that the star which was seen by them in the East was new, and similar to none of those that are in the firmament or in the lower C spheres; but that it was of the kind of those which occasionally arise, and which have names among the Greeks—who designate their differences with their own terms—whether from the semblance of a comet, or a beamed star, or a bearded star, or a jar-shaped star, or however it pleases them to name their differences. We construct our opinion in this way.
59. It has been observed regarding great events and the greatest D changes of things on earth, that such appearances arise.
A Such stars, which portend either the overthrow of kingdoms, or wars, or whatever else can happen among men and shake human affairs, are observed. We read, however, in the booklet of Chæremon the Stoic, *On Comets*, how comets sometimes arise as forerunners of even useful things; and he confirms this with examples. If, therefore, a comet or other similar star is excited at the change of kingdoms or other notable events, what is surprising if, at the birth of him who was about to introduce innovations among the human race and to spread his teaching not only among the Jews, but also among the Greeks and many barbarian nations, a star should have appeared? And as for comets, I would say that no prophecy is extant which signifies that such a comet will rise at this or that time for this or that kingdom; but that the star which appeared at the birth of Jesus, that Balaam had predicted. For thus it is written in Moses: “There shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man shall rise out of Israel” (Num. XXIV, 17). But if it is necessary to examine also the things written about the Magi and the star seen by them at the birth of Jesus, we would speak in the following manner, using one language with the Greeks and another with the Jews.
60. To the Greeks, indeed, I shall say that the magi, who have commerce with demons and who invoke them for those things B which they have learned and wish for, according to the laws of their art which they have learned, perform such things only as long as nothing more divine and more powerful than the demons and the incantation summoning them appears or is named; but if some more divine power emerges, the powers of the demons are brought to nothing, and they cannot endure the splendor of the Godhead. It is likely, therefore, that at the birth of Jesus, since a multitude of the heavenly host (as Luke wrote, and I believe) praised God and said: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men” (Luke II, 13, 14), that for this reason the power and strength of the demons failed, their trickery being exposed and their efficacy rendered invalid, C destroyed not only by the angels who descended to the regions of earth because of the birth of Jesus, but also by the power of Jesus and the Godhead that was in him. Therefore, the magi, wishing to do their usual practices which they had formerly done through certain incantations and magic arts, sought the reason, inferring that it was great; and having seen a divine sign in heaven, they wished to see what was signified by it. It seems to me, therefore, that having the [prophecies] of Balaam, D which were also written down by Moses,
A and having found therein that passage concerning the star: "I will show him, but not now; I bless him, but he does not draw near," they conjectured that the man heralded by the star had made his appearance in the world. And since they considered him to be superior to all demons and to the phantoms and forces that were accustomed to appear and minister to them, they desired to worship him. They came, therefore, into Judea, convinced that a king had been born, though they knew not what kind of kingdom he would rule, nor where he was to be born. Having taken with them gifts, which—if I may so call them—they offered as symbols to one who was, so to speak, composed of God and mortal man: gold as to a king, myrrh as to one who was to die, and frankincense as to God; and they offered these having learned the place of his birth. But since God, who is the Savior of the human race, is far superior B to the angels who bring aid to men, an angel rewarded the piety of the Magi in worshipping Jesus, by warning them "not to return to Herod, but to depart into their own country by another way."
61. That Herod plotted against the one who was born, although the Jew in Celsus does not believe this to have truly happened, is not at all surprising. For malice is a blind thing, and desires to overcome even fate itself, as if it were stronger than it. Suffering from this malady, Herod believed the Jews that a king had been born, and he conceived a plan in no way consistent with this persuasion. For he did not see that either he was absolutely a king and would reign, or he would not reign and would be slain in vain. C He desired, therefore, to kill him, being led by a wickedness that held conflicting judgments, moved by the blind and wicked devil who had laid snares for the Savior from the very beginning, having imagined him to be someone great and about to be so. The angel, indeed, warned Joseph—observing the sequence of events, even if Celsus does not believe it—to flee with the child and his mother into Egypt. Herod, however, ordered all the infants in Bethlehem and its borders to be slaughtered, as if he would thereby kill the one born King of the Jews. For he did not see the sleepless, protective power D that watches over those worthy to be kept and preserved for the salvation of men, among whom Jesus held the place of prince by dignity and excellence, superior by all honors and eminence. He was to be a king—not, however, as Herod imagined, but as it was fitting for God to grant a kingdom, for the benefit of those being governed, for he would not be one to bestow intermediate and, if I may so speak, indifferent benefits, but one who would instruct and guide those under him by truly divine laws. Knowing this, and denying that he was a king in the sense that most understand, while teaching the pre-eminence of his own kingdom, Jesus says: "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would surely fight, that [I might not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here]."
A If Celsus had perceived this, he would not have said: "But if, so that you might not reign in his place after you had reached adult age, why, when you had reached it, do you not reign? Instead, you wander about begging, as the Son of God, trembling through fear, and oppressed by miseries?" It is not cowardly to prudently avoid dangers—not from fear of death, but from a desire to benefit others while living a life of service—until the fitting time arrives for Him who took on human nature to undergo the death of a human being, having something profitable to offer to humanity. This is manifest to anyone who has grasped that Jesus died for the sake of humanity, a matter concerning which we have spoken as well as we could in what preceded this.
After this, since he does not even know the number of the apostles, he said: "having attached to himself ten or eleven wretched men, publicans and the most wicked sailors, he fled in their company hither and thither, collecting food in a shameful and grasping manner." Come then, let us also discuss these matters as far as we can. It is evident to those who encounter the evangelical narratives—which Celsus does not even appear to have read—that Jesus chose twelve apostles. He chose Matthew the publican. As for those he indiscriminately calls "sailors," he perhaps means James B and John, because they left their boat and their father Zebedee and followed Jesus; for Peter and his brother Andrew, who used a casting-net for their necessary food, are not to be counted among sailors, but as the Scripture has written, among fishermen. Let it be granted also that Levi was a publican who followed Jesus, yet he was not of the number of His apostles, unless according to some copies of the Gospel according to Mark. As for the rest, we have not learned by what labors they obtained their food before their discipleship under Jesus. I say, then, also in response to these points, that to those who can C prudently and candidly examine the things done by the apostles of Jesus, it is manifest that it was necessary for these men, having been strengthened by divine power, in order to teach
the Christian religion and to subject men to the Word of God. For neither did they possess the faculty of speaking or the art of discourse according to the dialectic or rhetorical methods of the Greeks, by which they might win over their hearers. A And, indeed, if Jesus had chosen and employed as ministers of his doctrine those who are in the opinion of many considered wise, and who are able, by the subtlety of their thoughts or the eloquence of their speech, to capture the applause of the multitude; in my judgment, there would have been a just suspicion that he had used a method and way similar to that of the founders of various philosophical sects, and what was promised concerning the divinity of his doctrine would not have seemed to be fulfilled. For his speech and preaching would have been in the persuasion of that wisdom which affects the allurements of words and the blandishments of apt composition; and this faith of ours, just like that which the philosophers of this world have in their dogmas, would have been in the wisdom of men and not in the power of God 47. But now, who is there who, when he sees fishermen and tax collectors, B even ignorant of the first elements of learning (for Scripture testifies this of them, and Celsus trusts them when they truthfully describe their own ignorance), confidently disputing about the faith to be attached to Jesus, not only among the Jews, but also successfully announcing Jesus among the rest of the nations, would not ask whence they had the faculty of persuasion? For it was not of a common kind. Who would not say that Jesus realized in his apostles by some divine power what he had promised them in these words: "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men 48"? Commending this same power, Paul, as we said above, says: C « And my speech and my preaching were not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that our faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God 49. » For, as it had been predicted by the prophets who announced the preaching of the Gospel, « The Lord gave the word to them that preached good tidings with great power, the king of the powers of the beloved 50 »; that this prophecy also might be fulfilled: « His word runneth swiftly 51. » And indeed, we now see that « their sound hath gone forth into all the earth » 52 the apostles of Jesus, « and their words unto the ends of the world. » Wherefore, those who hear the word preached with power, are themselves filled with power, which shines forth both in their affections and actions, and in their constancy in enduring death for the defense of the truth; but some are empty, even if they profess to believe in God through Jesus, D who by [the] power
of God seem to be drawn to the Word, yet possess no divine power. Although I have previously remembered the Gospel utterance spoken by the Savior, nonetheless I shall use it again now at a fitting time, setting forth both the prescience of our Savior regarding the preaching of the Gospel, which is most divinely manifested, and the strength of the Word, which without teachers takes hold of those who believe through persuasive power that is joined with divine force. Jesus says: "The harvest indeed is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore to the Lord of the harvest, that he may send forth laborers into his harvest." B
Since Celsus also called the apostles of Jesus "unspeakable men," naming them tax collectors and most wicked sailors, we shall also reply to this: that he seems, in order to malign the Word, to believe wherever he wishes the things that are written, but where he does not wish to accept the manifest truth, he disbelieves the Gospels; whereas, since he saw the truthfulness of those who wrote, it was his duty to believe, out of their record of the worse things, even concerning the more divine things. It is written, indeed, in the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas (from which Celsus perhaps grasped the chance to say that the apostles were unspeakable and most wicked), that Jesus chose his own apostles who were lawless beyond all lawlessness. And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." But also Paul, who later himself became an apostle of Jesus, says in the epistle to Timothy: "The saying is faithful, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first." C I do not know, however, how he forgot or failed to perceive that he should have said something about Paul, who after Jesus established the Churches in Christ. For it is probable that he saw that the argument concerning Paul required an apology for him: how, after he had persecuted the Church of God and fought bitterly against the believers, to the point of being willing to deliver the disciples of Jesus to death, he later changed so much that from Jerusalem to Illyricum he fulfilled the Gospel of Jesus
gelium Christi evulgaret 57, and fulfilling this duty with such zeal that, unwilling to build upon another man’s foundation, he sought those places where the Gospel of Christ our God had never been proclaimed. What is there absurd, then, in the fact that Jesus, wishing to show the human race what power the remedies have which He applies to the diseases of the soul, chose A the infamous and the most wicked, and advanced them to such a state that they might be an example of the purest life to those who, through their ministry, were brought to the Gospel of Christ?
64. But if we are to be permitted to reproach those who have changed their way of life with their former crimes, it will also be permissible to bring Phædon to trial, even after he betook himself to philosophy; for they say that he was led by Socrates from a brothel into the school of philosophy. Shall we also reproach philosophy with the licentious life of Polemon, who succeeded Xenocrates? Or should it not rather be set down to its credit that, through the power of persuasion which resided in both, they were able to recall from such great vices those who had earlier been enslaved by them? B Indeed, among the Greeks, there is only one Phædon (if there was not another, I do not know), and one Polemon, who, casting off their base and shameful ways, gave themselves to philosophy; but in the school of Jesus, not only were there the twelve at that time, but in every age since there have been many who, being admitted into the choir of the wise, could speak of their former life: "For we ourselves were also some time foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But when the goodness and kindness of God our Savior appeared, by the laver of regeneration and C renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us abundantly 58, D we became such as this." For God, as the prophet teaches in the Psalms, "sent His Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their corruptions 59." And I would add to what has been said that Chrysippus, in his book *On the Healing of the Passions*, [alt-version omitted]
A attempts to calm the passions of the human soul without professing to know what the doctrine of truth is, yet undertakes to heal those who are caught in their passions according to the different philosophical sects. He says: "Even if pleasure is the final end, in this way the passions must be healed; and even if there are three kinds of good, nonetheless, according to this argument too, those who are caught by the passions must be delivered from them." But the detractors of Christianity do not see how many it has delivered from passions, how many it has freed from a flood of vice, and how many it has tamed from savage characters by the pretext of the Word. They should rather, as men who boast of their commitment to society, be grateful for a new method which has turned so many people away from many evils, and they should bear witness to it, if not as the truth, at least as something most useful to the human race.
B Since, however, Jesus taught his disciples not to be rash, he said to them: "If they persecute you in this city, flee to the other; and if they persecute you in the other, flee again to another," and by teaching this example he was himself a model of a steady life, taking care not to go to meet dangers either heedlessly, or untimely, or irrationally. This, again, Celsus maliciously misrepresents, and the Jew, in his persona, speaks to Jesus, saying: "With your disciples you run away here and there." But we shall say that this slander which he has devised against Jesus and his disciples is similar to the story told about Aristotle. For he, seeing that a court was being brought against him as an impious person C because of certain doctrines of his philosophy which the Athenians judged to be impious, departed from Athens and held his school in Chalcis, having offered this justification to his acquaintances, stating: "Let us depart from Athens, so that we may not give the Athenians the occasion to commit a second crime similar to that against Socrates, and so that they may not again act impiously against philosophy." But he says that "Jesus went about with his disciples, shamefully and greedily collecting food." Let him declare, then, whence he learned of this shameful and greedy collection. For in the Gospels certain women, who had been healed of their infirmities—among whom was Susanna D—provided the disciples with food from their own possessions. What philosopher is there, who was devoted to the benefit of his acquaintances, who did not receive from them what was necessary for his needs? Or is it that for them this was done fittingly, but when the disciples do the same, they are blamed as if they were scraping together food in a shameful and sordid manner?
66. The Jew in Celsus continues to address Jesus: A "What need was there for you, while still an infant, to be carried away into Egypt? Was it for fear you might be slaughtered? For it is not likely that God could fall into fear of death. An angel came down from heaven, ordering you and your family to flee, lest by being seized you should die. And could not the great God, who had already sent two angels for your sake, keep his own Son safe at home?" From this it seems to be Celsus’s opinion that there was nothing divine in the human body and soul of Jesus, and that his body was not such as the Homeric fables describe. Therefore, mocking the blood that Jesus shed upon the cross, he says that it was not:
*Like to the ichor that flows from the blessed gods.* B
But we who believe in Jesus, when he speaks of the divinity that was in him, saying, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), or something similar, and when he affirms that he has a human body, saying, "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth" (John 8:40), we believe that he was a composite being. Thus it was fitting that he who had decided to live among men in the human manner should not untimely cast himself into the danger of death, but should allow himself to be led by his guardians, whom an angel sent by God had forewarned: first, indeed, with these words: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife; for that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Matth. 1:20); C and secondly, thus: "Arise and take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him" (Matth. 2:13). In these accounts, nothing written seems to me at all strange. For in both places in the Scripture it is related that an angel spoke to Joseph through a dream; and it happens to many others that they are admonished through a dream as to what needs to be done, whether it be an angel or some other power that forms images in the soul. What is absurd, then, in the fact that he who had once taken on human nature should be provided for in human fashion so that he might avoid dangers? D Not because it could not have happened otherwise, but because it was appropriate that the safety of Jesus should be provided for by a way and an order suitable to his state. And certainly it was better for the infant Jesus to avoid the snares of Herod and to depart with his guardians into Egypt until the conspirator should die, than if Providence, taking thought for the affairs of Jesus, had prevented Herod from fulfilling his desire to kill that little child.
Or [would it have been better if] Jesus had been furnished with the helmet of Pluto, as sung by the poets, or some other protection, or if the satellites sent to kill him had been blinded, as the Sodomites A were? For an unusual and extraordinary assistance was not appropriate for Him who, as a man, wished to teach by the testimony of God that there was something more divine within that man whom all saw, namely the Son of God properly so called, the Word of God, the power of God, and the wisdom of God, who is called Christ. But it is not the time now to discourse on that composite being, and of what the Jesus who became man consisted; since for believers, this is a subject of a private, and so to speak, domestic inquiry.
67. After this, the Jew in Celsus says, as if he were someone learned and educated in Greek literature, B "Ancient myths declare that Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos were born of the gods, yet we do not believe them. Nevertheless, they showed great and admirable deeds, truly beyond human [power], so that they might not seem unbelievable; but what fine or admirable thing have you done in deed or word? You showed us nothing; although the Jews in the temple challenged you to provide some clear sign that you were the Son of God." To this it must be replied that the Greeks should show us something beneficial to life, C brilliant and extending to future generations, from the deeds of those they have enumerated, a work so great as to give credibility to the myth concerning them which says they were born of divine seed. But they will show nothing, not even by a long shot, concerning the men whom they have recorded, which is comparable to the works of Jesus; unless indeed the Greeks wish to drag us toward myths and their own histories, wanting us to believe those things irrationally, but to disbelieve these things D even in the face of abundant evidence. We affirm, therefore, that the work of Jesus is apprehended by the whole inhabited world, in which the Churches of God, established through Jesus, dwell, [comprised] of those who have turned from ten thousand evils. And furthermore, the name of Jesus removes derangement from the minds of men, and casts out demons, and also heals diseases; and it produces a certain admirable gentleness, and propriety of character, and philanthropy, and kindness, and mildness in those who, not for the sake of material things or any human needs, pretend to be Christians, but who have sincerely received the doctrine concerning God and Christ and the coming judgment.
A 68. Then Celsus, suspecting the great miracles that were to be shown as having been performed by Jesus—of which we have spoken a few out of many—pretends to concede that it is true, whatever has been recorded concerning the healings, or the resurrection, or the few loaves that fed so many, from which much remained, or whatever other things he thinks the disciples have reported while acting as wonder-workers; and he adds to them, "Come, let us believe that these things were done by you." He immediately identifies them with the deeds of sorcerers, who promise even greater things, and with those performed by persons trained in Egyptian arts, who in the middle of the market-place sell their venerated tricks for a few obols, cast out demons from men, blow away diseases, call up the souls of heroes, and show expensive banquets, tables, cakes, and dainties that do not exist, and move animals which are not truly animals but merely appear as phantoms of such beings. And he says, B "Because those people do these things, must we believe that they are sons of God? Or must we not rather say that such arts are the practices of wicked and wretched men?" He thus seems, in a way, to acknowledge the existence of magic—I do not know if he is the same person who wrote many books against magic. Nevertheless, because it was convenient for his purpose, he compares the things narrated about Jesus with the effects of magic. And they would be similar if Jesus, like those who profess magic arts, had shown nothing but a vain appearance. But now, no sorcerer, through the things he does, excites the spectators to the amendment of their morals, nor teaches the fear of God to those who are amazed at the spectacles, nor strives to persuade them to live as those who must give an account to God. C None of these things do sorcerers do, because they cannot, or do not have the intention, or do not wish to labor for the correction of men, being themselves full of the most shameful and unspeakable vices. But he who, by the wonders he did, led the spectators of his good deeds to the amendment of their morals, how can he not be thought to have provided himself as an example of an excellent life, not only to those who were properly called his disciples, but also to all the rest? To the disciples, that they might be excited to teach men what the will of God is; to the rest of men, that they might be instructed by his words and morals rather than by his miracles on how they ought to live, in the hope that whatever they did, they might please God in all things. If, however, the life of Jesus was of this kind, with what right could anyone compare him to sorcerers, and not rather believe that, being God, he appeared in a human body D as had been promised, for the benefit of our race?
69. After this, Celsus mixes his argument with things said by some sect, as if they were common charges against all Christians.
A He brings forward a statement to those who follow the divine word, saying, “The body of God would not be such as yours.” But we, by way of reply to these things, say that he assumed a human body, such as one could receive from a woman, and that it was subject to human death. For this reason, among other things, we also call him a great wrestler, because of his human body, which was “tempted in all things,” like other men, yet not, as other men are, with sin, but in every respect “without sin.” For it is clearly evident to us that “he committed no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” and that God “handed him over for all who have sinned,” as one who “knew no sin,” as one pure. Then Celsus says, “The body of God would not have been sown as thou, O Jesus, wert sown.” However, he suspected that if he had been born as it is written, his body might perhaps be in some way more divine than others, and in a certain sense the body of God. And therefore he denies that what is written is true—that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit—and believes that he was sown from the intercourse of Panthera with the virgin; for which reason he said, “The body of God would not have been sown as thou wert sown.” But we have said more about these things above.
He says also that “neither does the body of God eat such food,” as if he had it in his power to demonstrate from the evangelical writings that he used food, and what kind of food he used. B But be it so; let him say that he ate the Passover with his disciples, not only saying, “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you,” but also that he actually ate it. Let him say also that he, being thirsty at the well of Jacob, drank; what does this have to do with what is said by us concerning his body? It is clearly evident that he ate fish after the resurrection; for according to us he assumed a body, as one born of a woman. C “But,” he says, “neither does the body of God use such a voice, nor is it persuaded by such means.” And these things are cheap and highly contemptible; for it will be said to him that the one who is believed by the Greeks to be a god, the Pythian, and the Didymean, uses such a voice, namely that of the Pythia, or of the prophetess who was in Miletus, and yet the Pythian or the Didymean, or any other such Greek god established in one place, is not on that account accused by the Greeks of not being a god. D Much better, however, would it have been for God to use a voice that, because it was proclaimed with power, would persuade the hearers by an ineffable kind of reasoning.
71. Then he proceeds, railing against Jesus, who—on account of his impiety and wicked doctrines, if I may so speak—
hate, he says, that "these things belonged to some God-hated and wicked sorcerer." A Yet, if words and things are strictly examined, it is impossible for a man to be "God-hated"; for God loves all things that exist, and loathes nothing of what He has made. For He would not have created anything had He hated it. But if any prophetic utterances appear to signify such a thing, they must be explained by this general rule, that Scripture speaks about God as if He were subject to human emotions. B But what answer should I make to a man who, in a discourse where he had promised fitting arguments to persuade, thinks he must proceed by insults and reproaches, with which he attacks Jesus as a wicked man and a sorcerer? This is certainly not the work of a philosopher who demonstrates a point, but of one who, like the men of the street, allows himself to be carried away by anger. Whereas, on the contrary, once the subject of the controversy had been set forth, he ought to have weighed it candidly, and to the best of his ability, to have brought forward what came to mind for the achievement of his purpose. But since the discourse that the Jew had with Jesus in Celsus ends here, we too shall put an end to the first book written against him. C And with God granting that truth which destroys false arguments, according to the prayer that says, "In thy truth destroy them," we shall begin in the following pages the second prosopopoeia, in which the Jew, as invented by him, addresses his speech to those who have believed in Jesus.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS, BOOK TWO
D 1. To the first book of those responses dictated by us against the "True Word" inscribed by Celsus—which ended at the prosopopoeia of the Jew addressed to Jesus and which has attained a sufficient length—we have decided to append this one, by which the accusations brought by the same man against those of the Jewish people who have believed in Jesus may be repelled. And first of all, we wonder at this: why did Celsus, when he had decided to invent persons, not bring the Jew to speak rather to those from the Gentiles who have embraced the faith, instead of to those from the Jews? For in this way the discourse composed against us would have appeared much more plausible. But perhaps he who claims to know everything did not know what to attribute to his invented persons in this place.
A What he says to those from among the Jews who believe must be considered. He says that they, having "left their ancestral law, because they were beguiled by Jesus, have been most ridiculously deceived, and have deserted to another name and another life," without noticing that those from among the Jews who believe in Jesus have not left the ancestral law; for they live according to it, having taken their name from the poverty of the law according to the interpretation. For "Ebion" is called "poor" (40) among the Jews; and those from among the Jews who have accepted Jesus as Christ are called Ebionites (41). And Peter also appears for a long time to have kept the Jewish customs according to the Law of Moses; as one who had not yet learned from Jesus to ascend from the law according to the letter B to the law according to the spirit—which we have learned from the Acts of the Apostles. For on the day after the angel of God was seen by Cornelius, he saw [a vision].
The first ones designated these as Ebionites, who dogmatize and glorify the things concerning Christ in a poor and humble way; for they held him to be plain and common, a man justified only through the progress of his character, born from the intercourse of a man with Mary; but they maintained that the legal worship was still absolutely necessary for them, as though they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and the life according to it. Others besides these, being of the same name, while avoiding C the absurd opinion of the former, do not deny that Christ was born of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit. Yet because they do not confess that he, being God the Word and Wisdom of the Father, pre-existed before all things, they have fallen into the same impiety as the former, especially since they were also zealous, like them, to observe the bodily worship regarding the law. D Those who were anciently surnamed Ebionites, inasmuch as they thought most humbly and abjectly of Christ—for they deemed him to be simply an ordinary man, and nothing other than a man who had become righteous through the progress of virtue; but that he was begotten from the intercourse of a man with Mary. Furthermore, they deemed the observance of the law to be altogether necessary, as if they could not obtain salvation through faith in Christ alone and the life led according to that faith. Others, called by the same name, shunning the absurd opinion of the former, do not indeed deny that Christ was begotten of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit; but the same ones, nevertheless, because they do not confess that Christ, as the Word of God and the Wisdom of the Father, pre-existed before all things, have fallen into the same impiety as the former; especially since, like them, they accurately observed the ceremonies of the Mosaic law.
B From this point begins his evil teaching, whence clearly the lawless Nazarenes were also foreshadowed. For this man associated himself with them, and they with him, and each imparted his own wickedness to the other. And though they differ from one another in some respects, they have smudged off upon each other in these evil notions.
A "To pray about the sixth hour. And he became hungry, and wanted to eat. But while they were preparing, a trance came upon him, and he beholds heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending like a great sheet, held by four corners [(43)] let down to the earth, in which were all the four-footed animals and creeping things of the earth and birds of the sky. And a voice came to him: 'Rise, Peter, kill and eat.' But Peter said, 'By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean.' And a voice a second time to him: 'What God has cleansed [(44)], you must not call common.'"
Observe, then, in these passages, in what way it is represented that Peter was still keeping the Jewish customs regarding clean and unclean things. And from what follows, it is made clear that he needed a vision, in order that he might share the words of the faith with Cornelius, who was not a Jew according to the flesh, and with those who were with him, since he was still a Jew and living according to the traditions of the Jews, and looked down upon those outside of Judaism. And in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul also indicates that Peter, still fearing the Jews, ceased to eat with the Gentiles when James had come to him, and "separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision"; and the rest of the Jews and Barnabas did the same thing with him. And it was consistent that those who had been sent to the Jews would not depart from Jewish customs, as "when those who seemed to be pillars gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, they themselves went into the circumcision," in order that the others might preach to the Gentiles. And what am I to say that those who preach to the circumcision withdrew themselves from the Gentiles and separated themselves? Since even Paul himself became a Jew to the Jews, that he might win the Jews. Therefore, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, he even offered a sacrifice at the altar, so that he might persuade the Jews that he was not a deserter of the Law. If Celsus had known all these things, he would not have maligned the believers from among the Jews, nor would the Jew fabricated C by him have addressed them as follows: "What madness drove you, citizens, that you should abandon the law of your fathers, and, lured by him whom we were just speaking about, should act so ridiculously as to pretend to be Christians?"
Until today, throughout all the synagogues of the East, there is a heresy among the Jews which is called that of the Mineans, and which is even now condemned by the Pharisees, whom they commonly call Nazarenes, who believe in Christ as the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, and say that he is the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again, in whom we also believe; but while they wish to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians. I believe also that they are called Ebionites by Origen for the reason that the Nazarenes have contracted some habit and familiarity with the Ebionites; hear Epiphanius, in his D *Heresies*: "From that source the worst of the preaching of the dogma took its beginning, from which we have taught that the impious Nazarenes also began." For both, having compared their tenets, communicated their impropriety and wickedness to one another. And although in some respects they differ greatly from each other, yet in devising the most depraved dogma they have expressed themselves through one another. And a little before: "For it (the heresy) has affected the impure superstition of the Samaritans. Furthermore, it received its name from the Jews; and from the Ossaeans, Nazarenes, and Nasaraeans it received its dogmas. Finally, it strives to usurp the form of the Cerinthians, the depravity of the Carpocratians, and the name of the Christians."
A [The Jew says] to those who from Judaism believe: "What has come over you, citizens, that you have abandoned the ancestral law, and, being led astray B by the one we have just discussed, have been most ridiculously deceived, and have deserted us for another name and another life?"
Since we have once arrived at the discussion concerning Peter and those who taught Christianity to those from the circumcision, I do not consider it inappropriate to quote a certain saying of Jesus from the Gospel according to John, and to provide an exposition of it. It is written that he said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear C (45), that shall he speak." And we inquire in this place what were those "many things" that Jesus had to say to his disciples, which they were unable to bear at that time. And I say: Perhaps, because the apostles were Jews and were nurtured in the Mosaic law taken according to the letter, these were the things he had to say to them: what the true law was, and of what heavenly things the Jewish worship consisted in sign and shadow, and what future goods the law concerning food and drink (46) and feasts and new moons and Sabbaths foreshadowed. And there were many such things that he had to say to them. But seeing that it is very difficult to uproot from the soul dogmas that have been, so to speak, born and bred with one up to manhood, and having persuaded those who had received them that these were divine, to realize that it is impious to overturn them; and—in the excellence of the knowledge according to Christ, that is, according to the truth—to expose them as "dung" and loss, so as to persuade the hearers, he deferred this to a more opportune time, namely, after his passion and resurrection. For indeed, the aid, if offered at an inopportune time to those not yet able to contain it, would truly have been able to overturn the opinion they had already conceived in their minds concerning Jesus, that he was the Christ and the Son of the living God. And consider whether the interpretation of this passage is not correct: "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." For there are many things in the law that must be expounded and explained by a spiritual sense; and at that time the apostles, born and reared among the Jews, could not in any way understand them. I believe indeed that since those Jewish rites were a type, but the truth was what the Holy Spirit was to teach them, for this reason it was said: "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth"; as if he were saying, into all the truth of the things of which, while abiding in the types, you supposed you were offering true worship to God. And according to the promise of Jesus, the Spirit of truth came upon Peter, saying to him concerning the four-footed animals and the creeping things of the earth and the fowls of the air: "Rise, Peter; kill, and eat." And it came to him while he was still laboring under superstition. For in response to the divine voice he answers: "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any—"
anything common or unclean." A And he taught the doctrine concerning true and spiritual foods in the words: "What God has cleansed, you must not call common." And following this vision, the Spirit of truth, guiding Peter into all truth, told him many things which he could not bear while Jesus was still with him in the flesh. But there will be another occasion to discuss these matters when we treat of those things that pertain to the literal sense of the Mosaic Law.
3. Now, however, it is proposed to refute the ignorance of Celsus, in whose work the Jew addresses his fellow countrymen and those Israelites who believe in Jesus, saying: B "What possessed you to abandon the law of your fathers?" and the rest. But how have those who rebuke those that do not hear the Law, and who say, "Tell me, you who read the Law, do you not hear the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons," up to the words, "which things are spoken by allegory," and what follows, abandoned the ancestral law? And how have those abandoned the ancestral law who are always mindful of their fathers' words in their own discourses, and who say: "Does not the Law also say these things? For it is written in the law of Moses: 'You shall not muzzle the ox that treads the grain.' Is it for oxen that God is concerned, or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes it was written," and so forth? And how confusedly the Jew in Celsus says these things, C when he could have spoken more convincingly, saying: "Some of you have abandoned the ancient rites under the pretext of interpretations and allegories; others, while interpreting as you like to say in a 'spiritual sense,' nonetheless observe the ancestral customs; others again, content with the literal sense and believing that the whole spiritual sense is contained therein, wish both for Jesus to be acknowledged as the one whom the prophets foretold, and for the Mosaic Law to be observed according to the institution of their ancestors, as having in its very letter the whole mind of the Spirit." But whence would Celsus have had such discernment in distinguishing these matters, since in the following sections he mentions godless heresies D that are entirely alien to Jesus, and even some that deny the supreme Creator altogether, yet knows nothing of those Israelites who believe in Jesus and have not abandoned the ancestral law? For it was not his purpose to investigate everything in this place with a sincere desire for truth, so that if he found something useful he might accept it; but as an enemy, intent entirely on destroying as soon as he heard, he wrote such things.
4. Then the Jew in his work says to those from the people who have believed: "Yesterday and the day before, when we were punishing him who was leading you astray, you departed..."
from the law of your fathers; and he knew nothing accurately A in what he said, as we have shown. After this, it seems to me that the following point has some force: "How is it that you begin with our sacred rites, and yet, as you advance, you despise them? You have no other beginning to speak of for your doctrine than our law." For it is true that the introduction to the way of life for Christians is from the sacred rites of Moses and the prophetic writings; and after the introduction, the progress for those who are being instructed lies in the discourse and in the understanding of these, while they seek the "mystery kept secret since the world began, but now made manifest" B by the prophetic scriptures and the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But it is not true, as you say, that those who advance despise the things written in the Law; rather, they accord them greater honor, demonstrating how great a depth of wise and hidden words those scriptures contain—things which were not perceived by the Jews, who encountered them in a more superficial and mythical way. And what is strange about the law being the beginning of our doctrine, that is, of the Gospel? For our Lord Jesus himself said to those who did not believe in him: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" Moreover, one of the evangelists, Mark, says: "The beginning of the Gospel of our Lord C Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you," showing that the beginning of the Gospel is derived from the Jewish scriptures. What then is said against us by the Jew in Celsus' work, in the passage: "For if anyone foretold to you that the Son of God would come among men, he was our prophet and the prophet of our God"? What reproach is it to Christianity if John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For it does not follow, because he was a Jew, that everyone who believes, whether he comes to the Word from the Gentiles or from the Jews, must observe the law of Moses according to the letter.
After this, even if Celsus repeats himself D regarding Jesus, saying for the second time that he suffered punishment among the Jews for his transgressions, we will not repeat our defense, being content with the one already given. Then, since he treats as stale the things concerning the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of God, and the reward for the righteous, and the fire for the unrighteous, the Jew in his account treats these with contempt; but...
and declaring that nothing new is taught to Christians in these matters, he thinks he is overthrowing Christianity. We must answer him that our Jesus, seeing that the Jews were performing nothing worthy of the instructions in the prophets, taught by a parable that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to those from the nations. Wherefore it is truly possible now to see that all things of the Jews of the present time are myths and trifles; for they do not have the light of the knowledge of the Scriptures. But the truth belongs to the Christians, which is able to lift up and raise B the soul and mind of man, and to persuade them to have a citizenship not like that of the earthly, lower Jews, but one in the heavens; which is evident to those who behold the greatness of the thoughts in the Law and the prophets, and are able to set them forth to others.
Let it be the case even that all the customs concerning the Jews, including the sacrifices among them, were performed by Jesus; what does this contribute to the reason why one should not believe in him as the Son of God? Jesus, therefore, is the Son of the God who gave the Law and the prophets; and we who are in the Church do not violate the Law, but having spurned the myths of the Jews, we are corrected and instructed by investigating the secret meaning of the Law and the prophets. For indeed the prophets, as those who do not confine the sense of what they say C to simple history and to the words and letter of the Law, sometimes speak in this way, surely about to narrate histories: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world"; and sometimes, as they pray concerning the Law because it is obscure and can be understood only with the help of God, they say in their prayer: "Open my eyes, and I will consider wonderful things out of thy Law."
7. Let them show where even a hint of a word spoken by Jesus in arrogance is found. For how could he be arrogant who says: "Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls"? Or how is he arrogant who, after the supper had taken place, put off his garment before his disciples, and girded himself with a towel, and having poured D water into a basin, washed the feet of each one, and rebuked the one who refused to offer them, saying these words: "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me"? Or how is he arrogant who says: "I am in the midst of you, not as the one who reclines, but as the one who serves"? Let someone convict him of having stated anything false; and let him prove what his great lies were, and let him state what the great and the small lies are. There is also another way of refuting him. For a falsehood is not one more or less false than another, just as something true is not more or less true than something else. What then [alt-version omitted]
A are the impious acts of Jesus? Let the Jew of Celsus declare them, and especially them. Is it impious to depart from bodily circumcision, and the bodily Sabbath, and bodily feasts, and bodily new moons, and from the distinction between clean and unclean? And to transfer the mind to the law of God, which is worthy, true, and spiritual, while at the same time knowing that he who serves as an ambassador for Christ is to become a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews; and to those under the law, as under the law, that he might gain those who are under the law?
He says, "Many others might appear to those who wish to be deceived, such as Jesus was." Let the Jew of Celsus point out B not many, nor a few, but even one who has introduced to the human race a teaching and doctrines such as those of Jesus, accompanied by power in them, which are beneficial to life and turn one away from the dregs of sins. He says that this is a charge brought by those who believe in Christ against the Jews, because they have not believed in Jesus as God; and regarding this we have already defended ourselves above, showing at the same time how we conceive of Him as God, and in what sense we call Him man. "But how," he says, "did we, who announced to all men that there would come from God one who would punish the unjust, treat Him with indignity after He had come?" To reply to this C is entirely foolish, and does not seem to me to be reasonable. It is as if someone were to say, "How could we, who have taught self-control, have committed any act of licentiousness? Or, advocating justice, have acted unjustly?" For just as such inconsistencies are found among men, so it was a human thing that those who professed to believe in the prophets who spoke about the coming Christ should not have faith in Him who came in accordance with the prophecies. But if we must add another reason, we shall say that the prophets themselves predicted this same thing. Isaiah clearly says: "Hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has waxed gross," and so forth. And let them tell us what it is that the Jews D are prophesied not to understand in what is said, and in what way they are not to see what is seen. But it is manifest that, seeing Jesus, they did not see who He was; and hearing Him, they did not understand from what was said the divinity that was in Him, which was transferring God's oversight of the Jews to those from the nations who believe in Him. Therefore, one can see that after the coming of Jesus, the Jews were altogether forsaken, and have nothing of the things that once seemed to them worthy of veneration; but even no sign of there being any divine
A presence among them. For there are no longer prophets, nor miracles; of which even traces continue to be found to some extent among the Christians, and some that are even greater; and if, as we say, we are believers, we ourselves have seen them. The Jew in Celsus says: "Why did we treat with ignominy the one whom we had previously announced? Was it that we might suffer greater punishments than others?" To this I answer that the Jews will indeed suffer greater punishments than others, both because of their unbelief in Christ and because of the other outrages they heaped upon him; nor will the punishment be deferred to the time of judgment, for which we hope; they have already suffered it. For what nation, except the Jews alone, has been expelled from its own principal city and from the place where its ancestral B worship had been peculiarly established? This they have suffered as the most vile of men, not so much because of their other crimes, which indeed were many, as because of what they dared to do against Jesus.
9. The Jew says later: "How were we to believe that this man was God, who, as was generally reported, performed none of the things which he had promised; and who, after being convicted by us, condemned, and judged worthy of punishment, sought hiding-places and fled most shamefully, being captured and betrayed by those very persons whom he called his disciples? Yet it was not appropriate for one who was God to flee and to be led away in bonds; and it was most unworthy of him who was believed to be a Savior, the Son of the greatest God, and an angel, to be abandoned and betrayed by those with whom he had lived, whom he had made privy to all his private affairs, and who used him as their master." To these C things I will reply that we do not consider that bodily form of Jesus which fell under the eyes and was subject to the senses to be God. And why do I say the body? We do not even consider the soul to be such, concerning which it was said: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death" (Matt. xxvi, 38). But just as the one who says, "I am the Lord, the God of all flesh" (Jer. xxii, 27), and, "Before me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none" (Isa. xliii, 10), is believed even by the Jews to be God, using the soul and body of the prophet as an instrument, just as the Greeks also, regarding him who says this of himself: I know the number of the sands and the measures of the sea, I understand the mute and hear the one who does not speak, judge him to be God, using the voice and ears of the Pythia; so also among us the Word, who is God and the Son of the God of all things, spoke in Jesus: "I am the way, the truth,
A and the life," and this: "I am the door," and this: "I am the living bread, which came down from heaven," and whatever else is like these. We charge the Jews, therefore, with not believing him to be God, though the prophets have frequently testified that he is a great power and God, second only to the God and Father of all things. For we say that in the creation described by Moses, the Father commanded and said: "Let there be light," and, "Let there be a firmament," and the rest of the things which God ordered to be created; and that to him he said: "Let us make man in our image and likeness," and that the Word, having been commanded, performed all that the Father had ordered him to do. And we say these things not as if led by conjecture, but relying on the very testimonies of the prophets—testimonies also accepted among the Jews—in which it is said concerning God and the things created by him in these very terms: "He spake, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created." For if God commanded B and the things created were made, who could he be, according to the mind of the prophetic Spirit, who was able to fulfill such a command of the Father, if not he who is the Word, and—if I may so call him—the animate Word and the truth?
That the one who says in Jesus, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," is not, as the Gospels also know, some circumscribed being—in such a way that he is not outside the soul and body of Jesus—can be gathered from many places; I shall bring forward only a few, as follows. John the Baptist, prophesying that the Son of God was soon to be manifest, and that he was not circumscribed by that body and that soul, but was present everywhere, says concerning him: "There stands in the midst of you whom you know not, he coming after me." If he had thought the Son of God was only there where the C visible body of Jesus was, how would he have said: "There stands in the midst of you whom you know not"? And Jesus himself, raising the mind of those who were being discipled by him to think greater things concerning the Son of God, says: "Where two D or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Such also is his promise to his disciples, when he says: "And behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." We say these things, however, not separating the Son of God from Jesus. For indeed, especially after the dispensation, he has become one with the soul and body of Jesus. For if anyone understands what it means to cleave to the Lord, and cleaves to him, he is one spirit with him, as Paul teaches in the words: "He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."
How much more divinely and more profoundly is that which was once compounded with the Word of God one with him! This very A power of God, being such as it was, manifested itself among the Jews through the miracles which it performed—miracles which Celsus indeed considers to have been sorcery, but which the Jews of that time, I know not from what source, attributed to Beelzebul, saying: "By Beelzebul the prince of the demons he casteth out demons." The Savior refuted them, arguing that in this way the kingdom of evil would not have reached its end—a matter which, for those who intelligently read the Gospel passage, will be clear, though this is not the place to expound upon it.
10. But what did Jesus promise that he did not perform? Let Celsus set it forth and prove it. But he will not be able to, especially since he brings forward what he says against Jesus or against us either from misunderstandings, or from improperly twisted passages of the Gospel, or from Jewish fables. But since he says again: "We judged him to be convicted, condemned, and worthy of punishment," let them show us of what crime he was convicted by those who strove to construct false witness against him, unless perhaps B the great proof against Jesus was that which the accusers stated: that he said, "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to raise it up in three days." For though he "spoke concerning the temple of his body," they, not understanding what the mind of the speaker was, thought it was said concerning the stone temple, which they held in greater honor than the true temple of the Word of God, of wisdom, and of truth, although it was this that particularly ought to have been honored. Let someone say how "Jesus most shamefully hid himself and sought to escape." And what did he do in this matter that could be turned into a reproach for him? But, he says, "he was captured." If capture implies an unwilling subject, then Jesus was not captured. For he allowed himself to come into the power of men at an opportune time, as the Lamb of God, that he might take away the sin of the world. "Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that were coming upon him, went forth and said to them: Whom seek ye? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. He saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them. As soon therefore as he said to them: I am he, they went backward C and fell to the ground. Again therefore he asked them: Whom seek ye? And they said again: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered them: I have told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way." But also to the man who would
B help him, and who struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear, he said: "Put up thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Or thinkest thou (85) that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" If anyone thinks that these things are inventions of those who wrote the Gospels, why should not those things be inventions which were said out of the hatred and enmity felt against him and the Christians, while those things are true which were written by those who accepted the genuine disposition toward Jesus, in that they endured everything whatsoever for the sake of his words? For the disciples of Jesus undertook such great patience and perseverance even unto death, with a disposition that did not B invent things about their Master that were not true; and it is evident to fair-minded judges that they were convinced of what they wrote, from the fact that they endured so many and such great things for the sake of him whom they believed to be the Son of God.
11. Then, that he was betrayed by those whom he named disciples, the Jew in Celsus learned from the Gospels; by mentioning many disciples but naming only Judas, he sought to increase the accusation; but he did not examine all the things that are recorded about Judas; for Judas, falling into conflicting and opposing judgments about his Master, was neither wholly C in his soul against him, nor did he wholly keep for his Master the reverence due from a student. For he who betrayed him gave a sign to the crowd that had come to arrest him, saying: "Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast," thereby preserving some respect for him; for if he had not preserved it, he would have betrayed him openly, without the pretense of a kiss. This, then, will convince everyone concerning the disposition of Judas, that along with his love of money and his wicked (86) intention to betray his Master, there was something mixed into his soul that had been implanted there by the words of Jesus (87), holding a trace—if I may so call it—of goodness. For it is written that "Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying: I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood (88). And they said: What is that to us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed; and went and hanged himself." But if Judas, the lover of money D and thief...
A accustomed to put what was given for the poor into the money-box, moved by repentance, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, it is clear that the teachings of Jesus had the power to produce some kind of repentance in him, having not been altogether despised and rejected by the traitor. And also the statement, B "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood," serves to show that he was confessing his sin. See how inflamed and vehement was the grief that this repentance for his sins produced in him, so that he could not even endure to live longer, but, having cast the money into the temple, he withdrew, went away, and hanged himself. For he condemned himself, showing, as much as he was able—even in the case of the sinful Judas, the thief and traitor—the power of the teaching of Jesus, C for he was not able to despise entirely what he had learned from Jesus. Or will the followers of Celsus say that the things showing that Judas was not entirely apostate, even after the daring deeds committed against his Teacher, are fabrications, and the only true thing is that one of the disciples betrayed Him? And will they add to the written account that he betrayed Him with his whole soul? This is absurd, to make everything from his own writings serve as an enemy, both in believing and disbelieving. But if we must also bring forward a persuasive argument concerning Judas, we shall say that in the Book of Psalms the entire one hundred and eighth Psalm contains the prophecy concerning Judas, the beginning of which is: "O God, hold not thy peace at my praise; for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me" (Ps. CVIII, 1). D It is prophesied in it also that Judas separated himself from the number of the apostles because of his sin, and another was chosen into his place; and this is indicated in the verse: "And let another take his office" (Ps. CVIII, 8). But come now, suppose that He was betrayed by one of the disciples who was worse than Judas, and as it were cast away everything he had heard from Jesus: what does this contribute to the accusation against Jesus or the Christian religion? And how does this prove the doctrine to be false? We have already refuted what follows in the sections prior to this, showing that Jesus was not captured while fleeing, but willingly surrendered Himself for all of us; from which it follows that if He was bound, He was bound willingly—by which He taught us to endure these things willingly for the sake of piety.
12. Such things also seem to me to be childish: "A good general," he says, "and leader of many myriads is never betrayed; nor is even an arch-robber, leader of the most wicked men, if he seems at all useful to those who are with him. Jesus, however, betrayed by those who were subject to Him, neither acted as a good general, nor inspired in the disciples he had deceived by his cunning even such benevolence toward himself as robbers exhibit toward their own, if I may so call it, leader; for there are no lack of historical records...
A of instances where many commanders have been betrayed by their own soldiers, and leaders of robbers even by those who did not keep the pacts made among them. But let it be granted that no commander or leader of robbers was ever betrayed: what does this contribute toward arguing against Jesus because one of His disciples became His betrayer?
Since Celsus puts forward philosophy, I would fain ask him if it is a reproach to Plato that Aristotle, after hearing him for twenty years, departed from his doctrine, disparaged the account concerning the immortality of the soul, and termed the Ideas—those trifles of Plato—mere empty speculations? And further, if we inquire B further, we might say such things as: Was Plato then no longer capable in dialectic, or unable to set forth the things he had conceived, because Aristotle left him, and therefore Plato's dogmas are false? Or is it possible that even while Plato is in the truth, as those who philosophize according to him would say, Aristotle may have been wicked and ungrateful toward his teacher? But even Chrysippus in many places of his writings appears to attack Cleanthes, introducing innovations against the doctrines held by him, although he had been his teacher while he (Chrysippus) was still young and possessed only the rudiments of philosophy. Yet it is said that Aristotle attended Plato for twenty years, and Chrysippus spent no small time in studies with Cleanthes. But Judas spent not even three years with Jesus. From what is written in the lives of the philosophers, one could find many such things as those for which Celsus reproaches Jesus on account of Judas.
The Pythagoreans used to build cenotaphs C for those who, after having been converted to philosophy, returned to the private life; and not on account of this was Pythagoras or his followers weak in reason or proof. They say, indeed, that Hipparchus the Pythagorean was accused of having written down the decrees of Pythagoras clearly, and for that reason was expelled from the school, and a pillar was set up over him as though he were dead. Wherefore even in the philosophy of the barbarians, they call "dead" those who have fallen away from the doctrines and have subjected their mind to the passions of the soul. For they would set up a certain pillar and monument for such a person in the school; just as it is said to have happened to Perialus the Thurian, and to Cylon, the leader of the Sybarites, who, being condemned by them, were driven from the assembly, laden with abundance of gold and silver. D Moreover, someone might speak regarding those things which happened to Jesus and claim they are true, and indeed speak the truth concerning the events of Jesus, and not...
speak in a manner similar to what has been written by the disciples of Jesus; he says that he willingly passes over those things. What then are the truths, and such as are not what has been written in the Gospels, which the Jew of Celsus passes over? Or, having made use of a rhetorical skill that commands respect, does he pretend that he has something to say, yet has nothing B outside of the Gospel to bring forth that could strike the hearer as true, and as something clearly accusing Jesus and his teaching? He further blames the disciples, as having fabricated the claim that he knew and had predicted everything that would happen to him. But we shall demonstrate that this is true, even if Celsus should not wish it. For many are the predictions that Christ delivered concerning things which have come to pass even in the generations of Christians that followed later. And indeed, who would not marvel at that which was predicted: "And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them and to the nations"; and whatever else he predicted concerning his disciples being persecuted? For on account of what doctrine among those that have existed among men are others punished, so that anyone of those who accuse Jesus could say that, seeing his impious or false dogmas being accused, he thought it would be to his own credit to predict this about himself? For if it were necessary for certain persons to be dragged before kings and governors on account of their doctrine, whom else would it have been necessary to drag there than the Epicureans C who eradicate providence from the midst? Or whom else than the Peripatetics, who say that prayers and the sacrifices offered to the Divinity avail nothing? But perhaps someone will say that even Samaritans are punished on account of their own religion. I reply that the Sicarii are condemned to death for... D first place it should have been placed, the care of divine matters, which they call the priesthood. The same, cap. 9: "It remains from those whom we have enumerated above, the class of priests. And the description and arrangement of these is not obscure. For neither a farmer, nor an illiberal and sordid artisan should be appointed as priest. For it is fitting that the gods be worshipped by the citizens. But since the civil multitude is divided into two parts, that is, the heavy-armed soldiers and the senators, and it is fitting both to pay worship to the immortal gods, and to grant those who are worn out by age and the length of time the license to rest; to these it seems that the priesthoods should be granted." He does not allow them to pray for themselves because they do not know what is useful for them. "Thirdly, that even after the ascension of Jesus to heaven, demons were brought forward by some men claiming themselves to be gods; who not only were not pursued..."
B by you, but were thought worthy of honors. Simon, for instance, a certain Samaritan, etc." Afterward, Justin implored the aid of Caesar against them to restrain them in his *Dialogue with Trypho*, pg. 5: "And I said these things, that I would not, for the sake of anyone or anything, speak anything but the truth, and I do not intend to be intimidated by anyone, even if I must immediately be torn apart by you. For I have not had any concern or regard for my own people—I mean the Samaritans—in writing to Caesar; but I said that they are led astray by believing in the magician among their own people, Simon, whom they declare to be a god above every principality, and power, and virtue."
A being put to death. To whom we shall reply thus: The Sicarii B are executed for the sake of circumcision, as they mutilate themselves contrary to the established laws and that which is permitted to the Jews alone. And it is not possible to hear a judge inquiring whether, if the Sicarius who is struggling to live according to this supposed piety were to change his mind, he would be released, or if he persists, he will be led away to death. But it is sufficient that the circumcision has been shown to be the cause of the destruction of the one who underwent it. Whereas, Christians alone (according to the words spoken by their Savior, saying: "You shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake") are permitted by judges, even until their final breath, if they abjure Christianity and sacrifice according to common customs, and swear, to return home and live without danger. But observe whether it is not stated with great authority: "Everyone who confesses me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven; but everyone who denies B me before men," and what follows. And ascend with me in your thought to Jesus, who says these things, and consider the things foretold that had not yet occurred; unless, perhaps, you will say that, while denying faith in him, he speaks such trifles in vain, and speaks for nothing—for the things mentioned will not come to pass—yet you are doubtful regarding whether or not to assent to his words, saying: If their outcome proves these things, the doctrine of Jesus will be firmly established, and kings and D presidents will be concerned to destroy those who confess Jesus. But then you will believe, as one having received great authority from
God to sow this message among the human race, and believing that he would prevail, he says these things. For who would not feel awe, when ascending in his mind to him who was teaching at that time and saying, A “And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations,” and when observing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has indeed been preached, as he said, under heaven to Greeks and barbarians, to wise and foolish? For the Word, preached with power, has overcome every human nature; and there is no race of men to be found that has avoided accepting the teaching of Jesus.
But let that Jew of Celsus who does not believe that Jesus foreknew the things that were to happen to him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing and all the Jewish worship was being performed in it, Jesus foretold the evils that would befall that city at the hands of the Romans. For it cannot be said that the acquaintances and hearers of Jesus handed down the teaching described in the Gospels without writing, or that they left their disciples no records in writing from which they might learn the things done by him. But in these writings it is read: B “When you see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” Yet at that time there were no armies compassing, surrounding, and besieging Jerusalem. For this began while Nero was reigning and lasted until the principate of Vespasian, whose son Titus leveled Jerusalem to the ground—which Josephus narrates happened because of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ; but as the truth itself cries out, because of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God.
14. Moreover, Celsus could, even if he accepted or allowed that Christ had foreseen the things that were to come upon him, have feigned contempt for this fact, just as he did regarding the miracles, by claiming they were mere trickery; he could have said that many people, by means of divinations—whether by omens, or birds, or the examination of entrails, or by observing one’s birth-day—have divined what was to happen to them. C But he did not wish to concede this, as it is a greater thing; yet, by having in a way accepted that the miracles were performed, he seems to have disparaged even that under the pretext of sorcery. Phlegon, however, in his thirteenth or fourteenth (I think) book, D consists of sixteen books, containing the history of two hundred and twenty-nine Olympiads; the last of these ended in the fourth year of Antoninus Pius.
A the Chronicles, and gave to Christ the foreknowledge of certain future events, being confused in the matters concerning Peter as if they were concerning Jesus. And he testified that what was said happened according to what was foretold by him. However, even he, through those things concerning foreknowledge, unwillingly declared that the Word among the patriarchs of the doctrines was not, as it were, empty of a diviner power.
Celsus says that "even the disciples of Jesus, having nothing to object in a clear matter, devised this, namely, to say that he had foreknown everything." He did not pause—or did not wish B to pause—to consider the love of truth of those who wrote and confessed that Jesus had said to the disciples: "All of you will be scandalized in me this night," and that they had truly been scandalized; and that he had also prophesied to Peter that "Before a cock crows, you will deny me three times," and that Peter did deny him three times. For if they were not lovers of truth, but (as Celsus thinks) were writers of fictions, they would not have written that Peter denied him, or that the disciples of Jesus were scandalized. For who, if these things had even happened, would have tested the account that it so came to pass? And yet, in the nature of things, those who wished to teach the readers of the Gospels to despise death for the sake of the confession of Christianity ought to have kept silence about these things. But now, seeing C that the Word will prevail by its power over men, they set even these things down—though I do not know how they could harm the readers, or provide a pretext for denial.
He says quite sillily, "That the disciples wrote such things about Jesus as a pretext for the things concerning him; just as, he says, if one, while saying that a man is just, shows him doing unjust acts; and while saying he is holy, shows him committing murder; and while saying he is immortal, shows him dead; adding to all these that he had happened to say them beforehand." For his analogy is here inapplicable, since there is nothing absurd in the fact that one who had taken D upon himself to record things that occurred at a particular time. Indeed, I wish the whole of the Chronicle were extant: for much light would undoubtedly accrue from it to the times of the primitive Church; and we think this all the more correct, because among other testimonies of his industry, he also mentions that eclipse which occurred in the time of the Lord's passion, as Vossius says in the same place. But he says that Christ foreknew future events: is it because he predicted the destruction of Jerusalem or other calamities of that kind? Since the books of that author are lost, this would be a matter of conjecture. Concerning the eclipse of the sun, which happened at that time when the Jews crucified Jesus, the testimony exists in the most copious form in the Chronicle of Eusebius, under the year 2040: "Jesus Christ, according to the prophecies that had been spoken concerning him, came to his passion in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, at which time we also find these things written word for word in other pagan commentaries: A defect of the sun occurred; Bithynia was shaken by an earthquake, and many buildings in the city of Nicaea collapsed." All of which things agree with what happened during the Savior's passion. But Phlegon writes about these things too, who is an excellent calculator of the Olympiads, in the thirteenth book, saying: "In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, a great and excellent eclipse of the sun, greater than any that had happened before it, took place. The day became so dark at the sixth hour that stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia overturned many buildings in the city of Nicaea." And Phlegon indeed wrote in his Chronicles that it happened in the principate of Tiberius Caesar; but he did not indicate that it happened at the full moon.
A Since it is not absurd that he who had set himself up to propose to men an example of how one ought to live, should also have taught how one ought to die for the sake of piety—to say nothing for the moment of the fact that the death of Jesus for the sake of men has brought the greatest fruits to the universe, as has been demonstrated in the previous book—he furthermore thinks that the confession of the passion does not dissolve the accusation, but confirms it. He does not know, in fact, how wisely Paul has written concerning that passion, nor how many things have been predicted about it by the prophets. It also escapes him that a certain heretic said that Jesus only appeared to suffer, and did not suffer in reality. For if he had known all these things, he would not have said: "For you do not say that he appeared to impious men to suffer, not having suffered in reality; but you confess that he openly suffered." B It is far from our intention to say that Christ suffered only in appearance, lest that which is true, the resurrection, should be false. For he who truly died, if he rose again, truly rose again; but he who only seemed to die did not truly rise. But since the unbelievers mock the things we believe concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is useful to adduce Plato. He reports the story of Er, the son of Armenius 15, who, having risen from the pyre after twelve days, reported the things concerning those in Hades; and as to the unbelievers, even the things concerning the soul in Heraclides 16 will not be entirely... C But, I said, I will not tell you the story of Alcinus, but that of a most brave and excellent man, Er the son of Armenius, by race a Pamphylian. He once died in war, and when, on the tenth day, the dead were gathered up, already decayed, he was found whole and was taken up; and when he was brought home, intending to be buried, on the twelfth day after his death, as he was being laid upon the pyre, he came to life. Having come to life, he told what he had seen there. He said that after his soul had departed from his body, he went with many, and they arrived at a certain divine place, in which there were two chasms of the earth near each other, and two others also in the heaven above, directly opposite. Between these, judges sat; who, when they had given judgment, ordered the just to proceed to the right and upward through the heaven, having attached signs of their judgments in front of them; but the unjust to the left and downward, having these also in the back, signs of all things that they had done. When he himself approached, he said that it was required of him to become a messenger to men of the things there, and they commanded him to hear and observe all things that were in that place... D ...a great gap has been fixed; wild men, fiery to behold, appear; and bound of body, casting them down to the ground, they bend [them]; they order the just to proceed to the right and upward, but the unjust to the left and downward.
useless where they are. 17 And many are recounted who have returned from their tombs, not only on the very day, but even on the following. What is surprising, then, if He who accomplished many things paradoxically, and beyond the nature of man, and even so related that he had remembered what he had seen in the underworld. Nor, in this place, would it be useless to A remind the incredulous of what Heraclides relates of the son of the Armenian, whom he brought back from the funeral pyre after twelve days.
B Hence one will come to wonder why, among others, Grotius and Origen, men of the highest erudition, have used these and similar examples of no weight—by which they could neither confirm the mystery of the resurrection, nor move the pagans from that opinion they had conceived concerning matters of faith, nor refute heretics, nor steady the doubtful and wavering. Even they, from whose writings we have drawn these examples of deep stupor, never dreamed of any special influx of the Divine, or of any power more than human which might now summon back the spirit serving the body, or now restore it to its seat, weary of exile. Hear Pliny, book VII of the *Natural History*, chapter 52: "A boy, exhausted by the heat and the journey, slept in a cave for fifty-seven years, wondering at the change in the appearance of things as if he had awoken on the following day; from here, with an equal number of days, old age encroached, so that he nevertheless lasted to the one hundred and fifty-seventh year of his life." The female sex seems most prone to this malady through the turning of the womb, which, if corrected, the spirit is restored. To this pertains that noble [example], etc. See Galen in the cited place; Suidas on Heraclides; Laertius on Empedocles. Whether, therefore, it was from a magical operation or from skill in preparing medicines that it was brought about that the body should be preserved for a space of thirty days, you will argue most ineptly from either head. For one would confess, who has happened to read the books of either the physicians or the historians, that the soul is sometimes compelled by the intemperance of the body to call back its powers within; sometimes it migrates from the body by the power of magic, to serve the fraud of demons. But no one, from this common operation of diseases and magicians, would attempt to prove the mystery of the resurrection, which presupposes a separation of body and soul, whether effected by force or by the laws of nature. Even they who have reported to us concerning such swoons and unusual incarcerations of souls believed them to be enclosed in the body, constricted by the arteries and the heart, and that the heat of the body generated such faith; for the heat, moderate in leaking here and there through the pores, argued that the same was conglobated within. You will agree with me if you run through Philostratus, book four, chapter sixteen, *On the Life of Apollonius*: "And another miracle of Apollonius was done: A certain girl, at the very time of her wedding, seemed to die, whom, placed upon a bier, the grieving bridegroom followed, complaining much and grieving heavily about the imperfect nuptials; Rome also lamented together with him. The girl, however, was of a consular house. To this funeral, therefore, Apollonius occurring, 'Set down the bier,' he said. 'For I will soothe your tears for the girl.' And at the same time he asked what the girl's name was. Most, therefore, thought that he was about to deliver an oration, of the kind that are funeral discourses and rouse lamentations; but he, touching nothing but her, and whispering something secretly, awakened the girl from her apparent death. And the girl let out a voice, and returned to her father's house, just as Alcestis once restored to life by Hercules. And when the girl's relatives offered him one hundred and fifty thousand drachmas, he said he would give them to the child as an addition to her dowry. Whether, however, he found in her a spark of the soul which had escaped the ministers and physicians, or whether the rain by chance falling and warming the soul, already dispersed and nearly extinguished, gathered it together, is difficult to conjecture, not only for me, but also for those who were present to see the affair." Philostratus, as you see, seems to ascribe the return to life of the new bride to the falling rain, which warmed and excited the exhausted and nearly lost powers of heat, rather than to the magic of that man. Nor ineptly: since Galen, in this place which I have cited, says that it was the custom among physicians to place a glass full of water on the bellies of women laboring under this disease, by the motion or stillness of which they adjudged them to be either alive or inanimate. See Eusebius against Hierocles, in the refutation of the fourth book. SPENCER.
A manifest, as being unable to look back at the things that had happened, to despise them by sharing them with sorceries; and he also had something more concerning his own end, in order that, if the soul left the body willingly, having 19 arranged something outside of it, it might return again whenever it wishes? Such a word as this is recorded in John as having been spoken by Jesus: B "No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down, and again I have authority to take it up." And perhaps for this reason he preceded 21 him in departing from the body, that he might preserve it, and that his legs might not be broken, like those of the robbers who were crucified with him. "For indeed the soldiers broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he had breathed his last, they did not break his legs." We said, therefore, regarding this: "Whence then is it credible what was said before?" And as to the question, "Whence is the dead man immortal?" let him who wishes learn that it is not the dead man who is immortal, but he who has risen from the dead. Not only, therefore, was the dead man not immortal, but not even Jesus, who was composite, was immortal before he was dead, since he was about to die. For no one who is about to die is immortal; but he is immortal when 22 he is no longer about to die. "But Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has dominion over him," even if those who cannot grasp in what sense these things were said resist.
C But it is very foolish to say: "What god, or demon, or prudent man, who foresaw that such things were about to befall him, would not, if he were able, evade them, but would instead fall into those things he already knew?" And Socrates, at any rate, knew that if he drank the hemlock he would die, and he could, if he had listened to Crito, have escaped from the prison and so have removed himself from the danger of death; but he preferred, as seemed reasonable to him, to suffer a death worthy of a philosopher rather than lead a life unworthy of a philosopher. But also Leonidas 25, the general of the Lacedaemonians, knowing that he was about to die immediately with those with whom he was prepared to fight at Thermopylae, did not strive to live ingloriously; but he said to those with him: "Let us eat breakfast, as if we are to dine in Hades." D Those who care to collect such histories will find many more. And what is to be wondered at if Jesus, knowing the things that were about to happen, did not evade them, but fell into the things which he already knew were to come, where also
A Paul, his disciple, when he had heard what he was to suffer if he went up to Jerusalem, committed himself to the danger, rebuking those who were weeping over his fate and hindering him from going up to Jerusalem? And many of our own people, knowing that if they confessed Christianity they would die, but if they denied it they would be released and recover their possessions, have nevertheless despised life and willingly chosen death for the sake of piety.
Next to this, the Jew in Celsus says another silly thing: B "If he had predicted both the one who was to betray him and the one who was to deny him, why did they not fear him as God, so that one would not betray him, and the other would not deny him?" The most wise Celsus did not see the contradiction in his own statement here: if, as God, he foreknew them, and it was not possible for his foreknowledge to be falsified, it was not possible that either the one known to be a betrayer should not betray, or the one caught being about to deny should not deny. But if it were possible for the one not to betray and the other not to deny, so that it might even come to pass that they would not betray or deny, C even though they had been warned of these things, then he who said "this one will betray, and this one will deny" was no longer truthful. For if he foreknew the betrayer, he knew the wickedness from which he would betray, which was not altogether abolished by the foreknowledge. Again, if he understood the one who would deny, by seeing the weakness from which he would deny, he predicted that he would deny; but that weakness was not going to be immediately overturned by the foreknowledge. But where does the phrase "But they themselves betrayed and denied, having no concern for him" come from? For it has been shown D that it is false to say of the one who betrayed that he had no concern for his teacher; and it is shown to be no less false concerning the one who denied, who, having gone out after he had denied, wept bitterly.
The following remark is also superficial: "For even now, if a man foresees that he is being plotted against, and warns those who are plotting, they are turned away and take care." For many have plotted against those who even foresaw that they were being plotted against. Next, as if bringing a conclusion to his argument, he says: "Therefore, it is not because these things were predicted that they happened; for that is impossible. But because they happened, it is proven to be false that they were predicted; for it is utterly impossible that those who had been warned should still betray and deny." But given that his previous premises have been overturned, this conclusion is also overturned: "Therefore it is not because they were predicted that they happened." We say that they did indeed happen, as was possible; and since they happened, it is proven that the prediction was true; for the truth concerning future events is judged by their outcomes. Therefore, that which he says, that what was said is proven to be false, is itself false.
A And it is said in vain by Celsus that, "It is entirely impossible for those who have heard beforehand to betray or to deny."
20. A Let us hear, then, what he says afterward: "God, he says, being who He is, foretold it, and it was absolutely necessary that what was foretold should come to pass. God, therefore, led His own disciples and prophets, with whom He ate and drank, to this point, so that they became impious and unholy, He whom it behooved to benefit all men, and especially those who sat at table with Him. Never has a man who shared a table with another plotted against him; but one who sat at table with God became a plotter. And what is more absurd, God Himself plotted against His own table-companions, making them traitors and impious."
B To these things, since you desire that I should answer even the seemingly trivial thrusts of Celsus, I shall say such things as these. Celsus thinks that because something is foretold, it happens for that reason, because it was foretold; but we, not granting this, say that he who foretells is not the cause of the future event simply because he foretold that it would come to pass, but rather that the event, which was to be (even if it had not been foretold), offered the cause to Him who foreknows it to foretell it. And this whole matter rests in the foreknowledge of Him who foretells; for since this or that thing is possible to happen, and also possible not to happen, one or the other of these will come to pass. And what we say is that the foreknower, when he removes the possibility of a thing existing and not existing, says something like this: "This will absolutely happen, and it is impossible for it to happen otherwise."
C And such a concept reaches to all foreknowledge concerning that which is "up to us," whether according to the divine Scriptures or according to the histories of the Greeks. And the argument which is called among the dialecticians the "lazy argument," a sophism that it is, will not be a sophism as far as Celsus is concerned, but according to sound reason it is a sophism. But that such a thing may be understood, I shall use as an example from the Scripture the prophecies concerning Judas, or the foreknowledge of our Savior concerning him as one who would betray Him; and from the Greek histories, the oracle given to Laius, allowing for the present that it is possible for things to happen or not to happen.
D For if the Word of God foretells that certain angels and men will certainly be tormented because He foreknew that they would unchangeably be wicked, He foretold these things. "By the will of One God, through one Lord, He gathers those who are already ordained, whom God foreordained, having known before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous." Origen, in his explanation of chapter 7 of Romans: "For even if we think with common understanding concerning foreknowledge, it will not be that something is because God knows it as future; but rather, because it is future, it is known by God before it comes to pass. For even if, for example, we imagine that God does not foreknow something as future, it will undoubtedly come to pass; just as, for instance, Judas became a traitor, and the prophets foretold that it would be so; therefore, not because the prophets foretold it did Judas betray; but because he was to be a traitor, the prophets foretold the things which he was to do out of the wickedness of his own intent; when Judas certainly had it in his power to be like Peter and John, if he had willed; but he chose the love of money rather than the glory of the apostolic fellowship; and the prophets, foreseeing this future will of his, handed it down in their books."
A Since it does not grieve the argument, let us consider the case of Judas [(36)] in the one hundred and eighth Psalm, which is spoken in the person of the Savior, and which begins: "O God, hold not thy peace at my praise; for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me." And if you observe what is written in that Psalm, you will find that, just as it was foreknown that he would betray the Savior, so he was also the cause of his own betrayal, and deserved the curses mentioned against him in the prophecy because of his own wickedness. For it says: "Let these things happen to him, because he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man." Therefore, he could have remembered to show mercy and not have persecuted whom he did persecute. But though he was able, he did not do so; instead, he betrayed; and thus he was worthy of the curses mentioned against him in the prophecy.
And against the Greeks, we shall also use the argument mentioned regarding Laius [(38)], whether we use those very words or those which the tragic poet wrote with the same meaning. It is said to him, then, by the one who foreknew what was to come:
Ne serito sulcum liberum invitis diis: B Nam si genueris filium, te morti dabit, Et tua refuso sanguine undabit domus.
From this it is made clear that it was possible for Laius not to sow the furrow of children; for the oracle would not have commanded him something that was not in his power. It was possible also to sow, and neither of these was forced upon him. But it happened that he who did not [(40)] beware of sowing the furrow of children suffered the tragic consequences related regarding Oedipus and Jocasta and their sons.
But there is also what is called the "idle argument," which is a sophism of this kind, applied in a hypothetical case to one who is sick, and as a sophism it seeks to deter [(41)] him from using a physician to recover his health. The argument goes like this: If it is fated [(42)] for you to recover from this illness, whether or not you call in a physician, you will recover. C And if it is not fated for you to recover from this illness, whether or not you call in a physician, you will not recover. And in either case, it is useless to call in a physician. D As Cicero says in his book *On Fate*: "If it is fated for you to recover from this illness, whether or not you call in a physician, you will recover. Likewise, if it is not fated for you to recover from this illness, whether or not you call in a physician, you will not recover, and either one is the case: therefore, calling in a physician is of no use." Then he adds: "Rightly has this kind of interrogation been called idle and inert, because by the same reasoning, all action will be taken away from life." And a little later: "This reasoning is refuted by Chrysippus. For some things are simple, others are coupled. It is simple that Socrates will die on such a day. For him, whether he has done anything or has not done anything, the day of dying is fixed. But if it is fated that Oedipus will be born to Laius, it cannot be said: whether Laius has been with a woman or has not been; for the matter is coupled and 'confatal.' For he calls it that, because it is fated both that Laius will have intercourse with his wife and that he will beget Oedipus from her," etc.
A If it is fated for you not to recover from this illness, whether you call the physician or do not call him, you will not recover. But if it is fated for you to recover from this illness, or fated for you not to recover, then you summon the physician in vain. But something of this sort may be wittily contrasted with this argument: If it is fated for you to beget children, whether you sleep with your wife or not, you will beget children. But also, if it is fated for you not to beget children, whether you sleep with your wife or not, you will not beget children. If, however, it is fated for you either to beget or not to beget children, then you sleep with your wife in vain. For just as in this case, since it is impossible and impracticable for one who does not sleep with a woman to beget children, the sleeping with a woman is not taken up in vain; so too, if the recovery from an illness comes about by the way of medicine, the physician is necessarily taken up; and the statement, "You summon the physician in vain," is false. We have brought all these things forward because of that which the most wise Celsus had said: "What God predicted, it was absolutely necessary that it should happen." For if he used the word "absolutely" to mean "necessarily," I do not agree; for it could have not happened. But if with him the word "absolutely" means the same as "will be," which nothing prevents from being true, even if it could also not happen, his argument does nothing against us. Nor does it follow from the fact that Jesus predicted that he would be betrayed by another, or denied by another, that He was the cause of their impiety and nefarious deed. For He who according to us knew what was in man, seeing his wicked character and perceiving whither his cupidity and his unsteady opinion concerning his teacher were going to drive him, said among other things: "He who dips his hand with me in the dish, he will betray me." B
C 21. Now see how vain and how manifestly false is this statement of Celsus, when he declares: "Never would someone who has been a partaker of a man's table plot against him. But if this is so, how much less would one plot against God, who reclined at the same table with God?" For who does not know that there have been many who have plotted against those with whom they shared even salt and table? The history of Greeks and barbarians is full of such examples. This is the very crime which the Parian iambic poet D charged against Lycambes, after he had betrothed his daughter to Archilochus but later repented of the deed and gave her to another.
A He censures him for violating a treaty that salt and a table had reconciled; for thus he sings:
"Broken for you are the laws of the table and the salt."
Those who care for historical learning, and who become entirely devoted to it, yet neglect the studies that are more necessary to know—namely, how one ought to live—will produce many examples by which it is evident that there have been many who laid snares against those of whose table they had partaken. B Then, as though he had gathered his argument with fitting proofs and logical connections, he said: "And, what is still more absurd, God himself lays snares for his own table-companions, and makes them traitors and impious." For by what reasoning could he prove that Jesus either meditated treachery or made his disciples traitors and impious? Someone might perhaps say that this follows from what preceded; but there is no one, even of common intelligence, who would not easily refute it.
After this, he says: "If these things were resolved upon by him, and he was being punished while obeying the Father, it is clear that for one who is God, and who wills it, the things that occurred according to choice were neither painful nor grievous [(49)]." C And he has not perceived that he is contradicting himself. For if he conceded that he was being punished because these things had been resolved upon by him, and he presented himself as obeying the Father, it is clear that he was being punished, and it was impossible for the things brought upon him by the executioners not to be painful [(50)], for pain is an involuntary thing. But if to one who wills it the things being brought upon him were neither painful nor grievous, how did he grant that he was being punished? And he has not perceived that, having once taken up the body that comes through birth, he took it up as being also capable of suffering pains and the grievous things that befall those in the body, if we do not understand "the grievous" as something voluntary [(52)]. D Just as, therefore, he took up a body that was not of a nature entirely other than human flesh, so he also took up along with the body its painful and grievous aspects, which it was not within his power not to experience, it being up to those who were acting to bring the grievous and painful things upon him. But we have already defended ourselves in the preceding pages, saying that if he had wished not to fall into the hands of men, he would not have come. Yet he did come, because he wished to, for the reason previously stated, that his dying for mankind was useful to the whole of creation.
In what follows these points, wishing to demonstrate that the things that befell him were painful and grievous, and that it was not possible for him, even if he had wished it, to make them not be such, he says: "What then, does he lament and wail, and the…"
fear of destruction he prays to escape, saying thus: 'O Father, if this cup can pass away'?" A And in these things observe also the malice of Celsus, that, not having accepted the truth-loving nature of those who recorded the Gospels—who, though they could have passed over in silence things which, as Celsus thinks, offer an opportunity for accusation, yet did not pass them over in silence for many reasons, which someone will duly set forth when expounding the Gospel—he brings charges against the evangelical wording, exaggerating and putting forward things that are not recorded; for it is not found that Jesus laments. And he paraphrases indeed the saying, "O Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away," but he no longer sets forth that which immediately follows this B and which reveals from the very start his piety toward the Father and his magnanimity, which is written right after it, running thus: "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." But neither does he pretend to have read the obedience of Jesus toward the will of the Father concerning the things he was decided to suffer, which is manifested in the words, "If this cup cannot pass away unless I drink it, your will be done," doing something similar to the impious who listen to the divine Scriptures with a wicked mind and "speak wickedness on high." For those people seem to have heard, "I will kill," and they often reproach us with this; but of "I will make to live," they do not even make mention, even though the whole statement signifies that those who live in public destruction and stain themselves with sins are killed by God, but that a better life is introduced in their place, such as is the life which God bestows upon those who have died to sin. Thus, too, those people have heard, "I will strike," but they no longer look at the words, "and I will heal," because it is similar to what is said by a physician who makes incisions in bodies and causes grievous wounds, for the sake of removing the things that are harmful and hindering to health, and who does not stop at the pains and the cutting, but restores by his treatment the body to the health proposed for it. But they have not even heard the whole of the passage, "For he himself causes pain and again restores," but only, "He causes pain." C So, therefore, the Jew set forth by Celsus indeed mentions, "O Father, would that this cup could pass away!" but he is silent about the rest, from which it is known with what mind and with what constancy Jesus endured his passion. In scrutinizing these things, I could say much about the wisdom of God, which would suitably be imparted to those whom Paul calls perfect, when he says, "We speak wisdom among the perfect"; but having deferred these to another time, I shall be content to say in a few words what will seem useful for the present purpose.
25. We were saying also in the preceding pages that some utterances are of the one who was in Jesus, the "firstborn of all creation," such as, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," and those similar to these; but others are of the man understood in him, of which kind is this: "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken to you the truth which I heard from the Father."
A Here, therefore, He describes in His human nature both the infirmity of human flesh and the readiness of the spirit: the infirmity, in the words, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me"; the readiness of the spirit, in the words, "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." And if one must observe the order of what is said, notice that the statement which pertains—so to speak—to the infirmity of the flesh is mentioned first, and it is a single statement; but those that represent the readiness of the spirit are subsequent and more numerous. For the one is, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me"; but the more numerous ones are, "Not as I will, but as You will," and this: "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, Your will be done." It should also be noted that He did not say, "Let this cup pass from me," but rather it was said piously and with a qualification: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." I know of another interpretation of this passage that runs as follows: that the Savior, seeing what the people and Jerusalem would suffer in retribution for the outrages they had dared to commit against Him, and desiring—for the sake of His love for them—that the people should not suffer what they were about to suffer, says, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." It is as if He had said: "Since, if I drink this cup of punishment, the whole nation will be abandoned by You, I pray that this cup might pass from me, if it be possible, so that Your portion, having dared to sin against Me, might not be utterly abandoned by You." But if, as Celsus says, no distress or pain was felt by Jesus at that time, how could those who followed afterwards have used Jesus as an example for enduring hardships for the sake of piety, if He had not suffered human things, but only appeared to suffer them?
C Furthermore, the Jew in Celsus says to the disciples of Jesus, as if they had fabricated these things: "Even when lying, you were unable to cover your fabrications in a plausible way." And to this it shall be said that the easiest road to cover such things would have been not to record them at all. For who, if the Gospels did not contain these things, could have reproached us regarding Jesus having spoken such things within the economy D of salvation? But Celsus does not understand that it is impossible for the same persons to be deceived about Jesus as being God and foretold by the prophets, and also to fabricate things about Him while knowing that the fabrications were not true. Either, therefore, they did not fabricate them, but believed them to be so, and wrote them down without any deceit; or they wrote them down while lying, and did not believe them, nor were they deceived into thinking Him to be God.
27. Subsequently, he says that some of the believers, “as if A intoxicated,” alter the first version of the Gospel three, four, or many ways, and reshape it, so that they may have a defense against refutations. I do not know of any others who have altered the Gospel, except the followers of Marcion, Valentinus, and perhaps also those of Lucanus. But this statement is not a charge against the Word, but against those who have dared to tinker with the Gospels. And just as sophists, Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or whoever the purveyors of false opinions might be, are not a charge against philosophy, so those who alter the Gospels and introduce sects foreign to the intent of Jesus’ teaching are not a charge against true Christianity.
28. Since, afterwards, the Jew in Celsus also reproaches the Christians because they use prophets who predicted the things pertaining to Jesus, I shall add to the points already discussed on this matter that he, who claims to spare men B by bringing forth the prophecies themselves, ought also—conceding that the interpretations which Christians apply to them are plausible—to have nonetheless adduced those points which seemed to him to overturn the use of the prophecies. Thus at least he would not have appeared to be seizing for himself a subject of such great weight by means of a few words, especially as he says, “that the prophecies of the prophets can be applied to six hundred other things much more plausibly than to Jesus.” And he really ought to have diligently set himself against this, which is the strongest proof, as Christians hold it to be, and to have set forth, prophecy by prophecy, how it can be applied to others much more plausibly than to Jesus. But he did not even perceive that this argument C might plausibly be made by someone who does not accept the prophetic scriptures against the Christians; whereas, what the Jew would never have said, Celsus has put into the mouth of the Jew. For the Jew will not agree that the prophecies can be applied to six hundred other things much more plausibly than to Jesus; rather, for each one, he will try to provide his own apparent narrative to stand against the interpretation of the Christians. He may not, indeed, say things that carry conviction, but he will strive to do so.
[index: entries preserved]
A We have already stated in the preceding pages that the prophets foretold both of Christ’s advents to the human race. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to defend against what is said by the supposed Jew, that "The prophets declare that he who is to come is a great and powerful lord of all the earth, and of all nations and armies (68)." He spoke in the Jewish manner, I believe, and according to their bitterness, while at the same time—though here he carries little conviction (69)—he insults Jesus, claiming that "he did not herald such a destruction (70)." Neither the Jews, nor Celsus, nor anyone else can demonstrate with proof that a destruction is what turns so many people from the flood of their wickedness to a life according to nature, adorned with temperance and other virtues.
B Celsus also threw in the point: "No one proves that God or the Son of God is such, by means of such signs and hearsay, nor from such ignoble arguments." He ought to have set forth the purported hearsay, refuted it, and addressed those ignoble arguments with reason, so that if he seemed to be saying anything convincing, the Christian might attempt to contend against it and overturn his argument. Yet as for what he said regarding Jesus, he did indeed offer a response as if toward a great person, but he did not wish to see that his point had been met, even though the evidence clearly demonstrates it regarding Jesus. "For as the sun," he says, "which illuminates all other things, first reveals itself; so it was necessary for the Son of God to have done." We would say, then, that he has indeed done so: "For in his days righteousness has dawned, and an abundance of peace (Ps. LXXI, 7)," beginning from his birth, God preparing the nations for his teaching so that they might be under one Roman emperor, and that it might not be—because of the pretext of many kingdoms (72) and the incompatibility of the nations with one another—more difficult for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish what Jesus commanded them, saying, "Go and make disciples of all nations (Matt. XXVIII, 19)." And it is clear that Jesus was born under the reign of Augustus, who, if I may so term it, unified the many who were on earth through a single empire. C It would have been a hindrance to the dissemination of Jesus' teaching throughout the whole world if there were many kingdoms, not only because of what has already been said, but also because people everywhere were forced to do military service and fight for their homelands. This is what happened (74) before the times of Augustus, and even further back, when there was a need for war to exist, as between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, and similarly for others against others. How then could this peaceful teaching, which does not even permit one to avenge the injuries of enemies, have been able to prevail, had not his coming D occurred while the whole world was held together by a single sovereign authority?
A 31. After this he expostulates with the Christians, because, relying on captious arguments, they assert that the Son of God is the very Word of God; and he thinks he adds force to his accusation when he says that we, “instead of that pure and holy Word which we proclaim to be the Son of God, set forth a most contemptible man, who was scourged and crucified.” But in the preceding pages all these accusations of Celsus have already been briefly refuted. For it was shown there that the firstborn of every creature took upon himself a human body and soul; and that in the creation of the things of this world, God commanded, and they were immediately created; and, finally, that it was God the Word who received the commandment. But since it is a Jew who says these things to Celsus, it will not be inappropriate to use the testimony which I mentioned above: “He sent his Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their corruptions” (Ps. CVII, 20), which we also mentioned before. But I myself, although I have had discussions with many Jews and with those B who profess to be wise, have never heard any one of them praise the statement that “the Word is the Son of God,” as Celsus has said, and [he is] attributing this to the person of the Jew, when he says: “If the Word to you is the Son of God, we also agree.” We have previously said that Jesus can be neither an impostor nor a sorcerer; therefore it is not necessary to repeat what has been said, so that we may not, as Celsus constantly sings the same tune, also sing the same tune ourselves.
He then proceeds to the genealogy; here he makes no mention at all of those points which are debated even among Christians, and which some bring forward as accusations because of the discrepancy between the genealogies, and turn into a fault. For that boaster Celsus, who professes to know all the affairs of the Christians, did not know how to extract prudently from the Scriptures those things which he could call into question. He says, therefore, that those who constructed the genealogy of Jesus from the first man and from the kings of the Jews acted most insolently; and he thinks he is bringing forward something weighty when he says: “Nor would the carpenter's wife have been ignorant of having descended from such a lineage.” What has this to do with the matter? Be it so, that she was not ignorant; what does this harm the points at issue? But let her be ignorant; whence does it follow that she did not trace her origin from the first man? And that her lineage was not traced back to those who reigned among the Jews? Or does Celsus think it necessary that the poor must be born of poor parents, or C kings from kings? It seems to me, therefore, that continuing to dwell on this point is vain, since it is clear that even in our own age some have been born who are poorer than Mary, of rich and illustrious parents, and from the most ignoble have come leaders and kings of nations.
33. “What great thing,” he says, “did he perform as if he were God?”
A And did he mock and play at whatever happened to him? But to one asking him thus—even if we can show something bold and unusual in what happened to him, whence should we answer except from the Gospels, which relate that the earth was shaken, and the rocks were rent, and the tombs were opened, and the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom, and darkness occurred in the daytime when the sun failed? But if Celsus believes the Gospels where he thinks there is an opportunity to accuse Christians, but disbelieves them where they establish the divinity in Jesus, we shall say to him: "Look here! Either disbelieve them all, and do not think to charge us, or, if you believe all that they contain, marvel at the Word of God who became man and willed to benefit the whole human race." It is a noble work of Jesus that to this day those whom God wills are healed in His name. Regarding the eclipse under Tiberius Caesar, during whose reign Jesus also appears to have been crucified, and regarding the great earthquakes of the earth that occurred then, Phlegon also wrote in the thirteenth or fourteenth, I believe, of his Chronicles.
Playing, as he thinks, at Jesus, the Jew with Celsus is recorded as knowing Euripides' B Bacchus saying: *I / The god himself will release me, when I wish.* Not at all, indeed, do Jews study the literature of the Greeks; but let it be that some one of the Jews was also a lover of learning; how then, since Jesus did not release him when he was bound, could he not even release himself? / For he must either believe from my Scriptures that C just as Peter, being bound in prison, went forth when an angel released his bonds, so also Jesus—but let it be that one of the Jews was curious in these matters; does it follow that, because he did not release himself when bound, Jesus could not have released himself? Let him rather believe from our Scriptures that Peter, being bound in prison, was released by an angel D and went forth, and...
Peter, when bound in prison, went forth after an angel had loosened his bonds; and Paul, together with Silas, when they were bound to the wood in Philippi of Macedonia, were loosened by divine A power, at which time the doors of the prison also were opened. But it is likely that Celsus mocks these things 84, or that he is absolutely unacquainted with the history; for he would have seemed to speak against it, that certain sorcerers also loosen bonds by incantations, and open doors; in order to equate our recorded events with the feats of sorcerers. "But not even he who condemned him," he says, "suffered anything like Pentheus, having become mad or having been torn to pieces." But he does not know that it was not in this manner that Pilate had condemned him, seeing that he knew that it was through envy that the Jews handed him over; just as the nation of the Jews, which has been condemned by God, has been torn asunder and scattered over the whole earth, to a greater degree than the dismemberment of Pentheus. And why did he intentionally pass over the matters concerning Pilate’s wife, who had seen a vision and was so moved by it that she sent to her husband, saying: "Have nothing to do with this B just man; for today I have suffered many things in a vision on his account 86"? And again, on the other hand, while remaining silent concerning those things which manifest the divinity of Jesus, Celsus reproaches him using the things written in the Gospel concerning Jesus, presenting those who mocked him, and the purple robe they placed upon him, and the crown of thorns, and the reed in his hand. From where, then, O Celsus, did you learn these things, if not from the Gospels? Did you, therefore, see these things 87 as worthy of reproach, while those who recorded them did not perceive that you and those like you would mock these same things; but that others would take therefrom an example of showing contempt for those who laugh and jeer at piety, and at him who for its sake died willingly? Rather, therefore, admire their love of truth, and him who willingly suffered all these things for the sake of mankind, and endured them with such patience and such equanimity that it is neither recorded that he lamented, nor is it reported that he did or said anything that could be interpreted as cowardice 88.
35. But to the statement, "Why does he not even now display some divine power, and deliver himself from this disgrace, and avenge those who insult both himself and his Father 89?" it must be said that it is possible to reply similarly to a Greek,
A who admits providence and concedes that prodigies occur, and ask: why does God not punish those who insult the Divine, and who take away providence? For whatever answer the Greeks might give to these things, we too shall say the same, or even better things. Indeed, a certain prodigy did occur from heaven, namely the eclipse of the sun and the other wonders, manifesting that the One crucified possessed something divine and beyond the common run of men.
Then Celsus says: "What kind of ichor flowed from the body being impaled B . . . as it flows from the blessed gods?" He is indeed jesting; but we, from the serious Gospels, even if Celsus does not wish it, will demonstrate that it was not the mythical and Homeric ichor that flowed from His body; but already after He had died, "one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and there came out blood and water. And he who saw it has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth." Now, in the case of other dead bodies, the blood coagulates and clear water does not flow out; but in the case of the dead body of Jesus, it was a marvel that blood and water flowed from the side C after it was struck. But if he, who brings forward from the Gospel words—even if poorly interpreted—for the purpose of accusing Jesus and the Christians, while remaining silent about those things which demonstrate the divinity of Jesus, wishes to hear about divine signs, let him read the Gospel and see that the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus, having seen the earthquake and what had taken place, were greatly afraid, saying: "Truly this was the Son of God."
After this, he who gathers words from the Gospel, which he thinks he can use for blame, reproaches Jesus for the vinegar and the gall, D "as one who was eager to drink greedily, and did not endure the thirst as even an ordinary person often endures it." This, indeed, might be explained in one way in a tropological sense; but now, a more general answer to these charges would be to say that the prophets also foretold concerning this. For it is written in the sixty-eighth Psalm from the person of Christ: "And they gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." Let the Jews say who it is that says these things in the prophet, and let them demonstrate from history someone who took gall for his food and was given vinegar to drink. Or if they should dare to say that these things are to be understood of the Christ whom they expect to come, we will immediately reply: what prevents this from having happened as predicted by the prophets? Certainly, this prophecy, uttered so many years before the times of Christ, along with the other prophetic predictions, if one is candid
A in examining all things, suffices to persuade one to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ who was prophesied and the Son of God. After this, the Jew says again to us: "You hold it against us, most faithful ones, because we do not consider him God, nor do we agree with you that he endured these things for the benefit of men, that we too might despise punishments." To these things we shall reply that we hold it against the Jews, though they were reared in the Law and the prophets who foretold Christ, that they neither refute the arguments brought forward by us to demonstrate that this one is the Christ—making a defense for their unbelief by saying they are refuting them, when they do not refute them—nor, since they do not refute them, do they have faith in the one who was prophesied and who clearly showed to his disciples B and after the time of his incarnation, that for the benefit of men he endured these things; having as the goal of his first coming not to judge the affairs of men, but before that, to teach and to bear witness concerning what must be done; and not to punish the wicked and grant happiness to the good, but in a truly wondrous way, and by divine power, to sow his own Word into the whole race of men, as the prophets had also declared. We further hold it against them that when he was demonstrating his power, they did not believe, but said that he cast out demons from the soul of men by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. We hold it against them that they also slander his benevolence, for he did not disdain not only a city, but not even any village of Judea, so that he might everywhere announce the kingdom of God, C accusing him of being a deceiver because he was seized and bound in an ignoble body. For it is not ignoble to endure such toils for the benefit of those everywhere who are able to hear.
But how is it not an absolute falsehood, that which is said by the Jew in Celsus, that "having persuaded no one as long as he lived, nor even his own disciples, he was punished and endured such things"? For whence was the envy on the part of the chief priests and elders and scribes among the Jews stirred up against him, if not from the fact that crowds were persuaded and followed him, and would be constrained even in the deserts, not only by the sequence of his words, which were always fitting to those who heard him, but also by the wonders that astonished those D who were refusing to attach faith to his words? Is it not also an absolute falsehood that "he did not even persuade his own disciples"—those who indeed suffered something human from fear at that time (for they had not yet been tempered toward courage), but who did not, however, hold what they had decided concerning the Christ
A opinion. For Peter had hardly denied Him, when, realizing into what a precipice of evils he had cast himself, he went out and wept bitterly; the others, however, struck by the grief of what had happened to him (for they still admired Him), after He later showed Himself visible to them, were strengthened, and believed more firmly and assuredly than before that He was the Son of God.
And Celsus, having suffered something unphilosophical, does not imagine that the superiority among men consists in a doctrine of salvation B and pure character, but rather in His having acted contrary to the role He had assumed, and in His having assumed a mortal body without dying; or, if indeed He were to die, it should not have been by a death that could serve as an example to others who would learn from Him to die for piety and to profess it freely before those who, not recognizing piety from impiety, consider the pious to be most impious, but consider those who are imbued with false opinions about God, and who accommodate their inner, firm notion of Him to anything rather than to God, to be most pious—and this especially when they are eager to destroy those who, struck by the evidence of the one and supreme God, have devoted themselves with their whole soul even unto death.
Furthermore, Celsus finds fault with Jesus through the Jewish persona, as not having shown Himself to be immune from all evils. C But let Celsus speak: from what evils has Jesus not shown Himself to be immune? For if he means that He has not been immune from what are properly called evils, let him clearly point out an act of wickedness in Him. But if he considers poverty and the cross and the conspiracy of the depraved to be evils, it is clear that he would also say that evils happened to Socrates, who was unable to show himself immune from such evils. For the Greeks' own history teaches them how great a choir of philosophers there were among the Greeks who voluntarily chose a poor condition of life; in which one may read that Democritus let his property be grazed by sheep; that Crates, in order to set himself free and at the same time to do a favor to the Thebans, gave away the money which he had acquired from the sale of his estates. And Diogenes, due to his excessive frugality, lived in a tub, nor would anyone of sound mind say that Diogenes was in evils for this reason.
Furthermore, since Celsus wishes Jesus not to have been beyond reproach, let him point out who among those who have agreed with His doctrine D has written what is truly blameworthy.
A Or, if he has received nothing of the sort from them, let him say whence he snatched this accusation to cast it at Jesus. Jesus kept faith with His promises by benefiting those who cleaved to Him. And since we see all that He foretold already fulfilled—that this Gospel has been announced in the whole world, and His disciples have gone forth to all nations to proclaim His word, and furthermore that they would be led before governors and kings for no other cause than His doctrine—we admire Him, and our faith in Him gathers new strength every day. Indeed, I do not know what firmer or clearer arguments Celsus could have desired to prove that Jesus made good what He had foretold, unless perhaps he wished, as it appears, that He—whom he does not recognize as the Word made flesh—should have experienced nothing human, nor have become a noble example for men in the generous enduring of the hardships of this life. For these things seem pitiable and ignominious to Celsus; for to him, labor is the greatest of all evils, and pleasure the ultimate good; which, indeed, none of those who defend providence and place courage, patience, and magnanimity among the virtues would admit. Faith in Jesus, therefore, has not been diminished by what He suffered; B rather, it has been strengthened in those who are brave and spirited, and whom He has taught that the life which is properly and truly happy is not of this time, but of the future age, as He Himself calls it; and that the life we live in the present age is full of calamities or is the first and greatest contest of the soul.
43. From here, turning the argument to us, he says: « You will not surely claim, » he says, « that when He could not persuade those who dwelt here, He went down to Hades to persuade those who are there. » However much he may dislike it, we shall reply that He persuaded not a few while here, but so great a number that, because of the multitude of those who were persuaded, He was plotted against; and in his nakedness... C
[Following is the continuation of the translation of the Latin apparatus note material provided at the bottom of the page:]
...regarding the nakedness of the soul, and the soul having become naked of the body, it conversed with souls naked of their bodies, and turning them... D [For translation of the Latin footer notes, see the following page, as the apparatus continues across the page break].
nversed with souls naked of their bodies, and turning A them to himself, or such as he saw were more suitable, because of the reasons which he himself knew.
After these things, I do not know how he says something very foolish, that: "If, finding absurd apologies for which [(11)] you have been ridiculously deceived, you think you are defending yourselves truly, what prevents others also, as many as have been judged and have fared worse, from thinking these angels are greater and more divine?" But that what was suffered by Jesus has absolutely and clearly no resemblance to those who fared worse because of sorcery, or whatever other charge it may be, is plain to everyone. For no one can set forth any work of sorcerers that has turned souls from the many sins among men and the flood of wickedness. B But since the Jew in Celsus, comparing him to robbers, says that: "One might, with equal shamelessness, speak also of a robber and murderer who has been punished, that this man certainly was not a robber, but a God; for he predicted to his fellow-robbers that he would suffer such things as he has indeed suffered," one might say, first, that we do not suppose such things about Jesus because he predicted that he would suffer them—[things] which we also now hold and profess freely in Him as having come down to us from God; and second, that we say these things were also foretold in the Gospels in a certain way: since He "was numbered among the lawless" C by the lawless. God, who was with the lawless—or rather the robber who had been cast into prison for sedition and murder, and who, when they wished him to be released, and Jesus to be crucified, did crucify him between two robbers. And Jesus is always crucified among true disciples and those who bear witness to the truth, and suffers at the hands of men the same condemnation as them. And we say that, if these [men] have something in common with the robbers, those who, because of their [(12)] piety toward the Creator, in order that they might keep it pure and undefiled according to the purpose...
D For He descended into death, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised through Him. Death was astonished, having seen a strange One descend into Hades, not held by the bonds therein. Why, O wardens of Hades, seeing this One, did you tremble? What unusual fear is this that possesses you? Death fled, and by its flight its cowardice was convicted. The holy prophets ran up, and Moses the law-giver, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and David, and Samuel, and Isaiah, and John the Baptist, etc. "If He descends into Hades, descend with Him. Know also the mysteries there of Christ; what is the dispensation of the double descent; what is the reason that saves all simply by appearing; or [saves] those there who believe."
A and fear no kind of death, they can be compared with robbers; it is consistent, then, that Jesus, the parent of this doctrine, should be compared by Celsus to the leaders of robbers. But neither is he, dying for the public good, nor are they, punished for the sake of piety—the only ones among men against whom plots are laid on account of the true worship of God—unjustly put to death, nor were the plots against Jesus laid without impiety.
45. See, I implore you, how light is that which he says regarding the disciples who were then present: "Those who lived with him, who heard his voice, who used him as their master, when they saw him tortured and dying with torments, neither lived nor died with him, nor did they despise the punishments; nay, they even denied that they were his disciples; yet you die with him." B Here again Celsus, in order to slander our doctrine, seizes upon the sin which the apostles, being recently initiated and still weaker, committed, and he believes it to be the truth; but what things were rightly done by them after the sin, with what boldness they approached the Jews, what punishments were inflicted upon them by the Jews, with what constancy they met death for the doctrine of Jesus, he hides all these things in deep silence. For he did not wish to hear Jesus prophesying to Peter: "But when you are old, you shall stretch out your hands," etc., to which the Scripture adds: "This he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God." He also counts for nothing that James, the brother of John, an apostle and brother of an apostle, was slain by Herod with the sword on account of the doctrine of Jesus; nor does he value more those things which, on account of the same, Peter and the rest of the C apostles did with the greatest confidence, so that when, after they had been scourged, "they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name," and gave many and far greater proofs of endurance and fortitude than those among the Greeks who excelled in these virtues. Hence, among the auditors of Jesus, this precept of his prevailed from the beginning, that this life, which most people crave, is to be despised, and that one should aspire only to that which is similar to the life of God.
46. Does not also the Jew in Celsus lie, when he says: "While Jesus was present, he won over to himself only ten sailors and publicans, the most wicked, and not even all of those?" D For it is clear that even the Jews themselves would confess that he won not ten only, not a hundred, nor a thousand, but at one time five thousand, and at another time four thousand; and he won them to such an extent that even four thousand.
A in the deserts, he led away the crowds who followed him, crowds which contained a vast number of those who believed in God through Jesus: in which places he showed them teachings, but also works. And he forces us, by repeating himself, to do likewise, since we are careful not to be thought to pass over any of the accusations made by him. Therefore, in the passage before us, following the order of the scripture, he says: “If, while he lived, he persuaded no one, but after his death those who wish to do so persuade so many, how is this not utterly absurd?” He ought to have said, if he wished to speak consistently: “If, upon his death, not those who simply wish to, but those who wish to and are able, persuade so many, how much more reasonable is it that he himself, when he dwelt among men, persuaded many more, both by more powerful speech and by his deeds?”
B He takes for himself, as our answer to his question, what he says: “By what reasoning were you led to think this one is the Son of God?” For he has made us answer that we were led to this, even if we know that his punishment brought about the destruction of the father of wickedness. For we have been led to him by ten thousand other reasons, a small fraction of which we have set forth in the preceding pages, and—God willing—we shall yet set forth, not only while discussing the true word against the one who is supposed to be Celsus, but also in ten thousand other places. And as if we were saying that we consider him the Son of God because he was punished, he says: “What then? Have not many others been punished, and no less ignominiously?” In this, Celsus copies the most servile of the enemies of the Word, who think that it follows, from the history regarding Jesus C having been crucified, that we worship those who have been crucified.
Frequently, indeed, Celsus, unable to gainsay the miracles which it is recorded that Jesus performed, slanders them as sorcery; and we have often spoken against this, as far as we were able. And now, too, he speaks as if we had answered that we thought him to be the Son of God “because he healed the lame and the blind.” And he adds to this: “As you say, he raised the dead.” That he did heal the lame and the blind, and that because of this we consider him Christ and the Son of God, is clear to us from the fact that it is written in the prophecies: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, then the lame shall leap like an D hart.” And that he also raised the dead, and that this is no fiction of those who wrote the Gospels, is shown by this: had it been a fiction, they would have recorded many more who had been raised, and those who had already spent a longer time lying in the tombs; but since it is no fiction, they have mentioned only a very few, since those concerning whom [alt-version omitted]
A he spoke—"She is not dead, but sleeps"—had something peculiar said of her which did not apply to all who had died; and the only son of the widow, whom He raised to life out of compassion, bidding the bearers to stand still; and thirdly, Lazarus, who had been in the tomb four days. And we shall say B concerning these things to the more fair-minded, and especially to our Jew, that just as there were many lepers in the days of Elisha the prophet, and no one of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian; and there were many widows in the days of Elijah the prophet, and Elijah was sent to no widow among them except to the one in Sarepta of Sidonia, for she had shown herself worthy, by some divine judgment, of the miracle wrought by the prophet regarding the loaves; so there were many dead in the days of Jesus, but only those rose whom the Word knew to be fit for the resurrection, so that the things done by the Lord might not only be signs of certain things, but might also of themselves draw many to the wondrous teaching of the Gospel. For my part, I would say that, according to Jesus' promise, the disciples have performed even greater miracles than those of Jesus which were perceptible to the senses. For the eyes of those who were blind in their mind are constantly being opened; and ears that were deaf to the words of virtue now listen C eagerly to what is said about God and the blessed life to be enjoyed in Him. And many who were lame with respect to the "inner man," as the Scripture calls it, now that the Word has healed them, do not simply leap, but leap like the stag, an animal hostile to serpents, and superior to the entire brood of vipers. And these who have been healed of lameness receive from Jesus the power to tread with the very feet with which they were previously unable to walk, upon the serpents and scorpions of malice, and in a word, upon all the power of the enemy; and in treading upon them, they suffer no harm, for they themselves have become stronger than all malice and the venom of the demons.
49. Jesus, then, in turning His disciples D away, did not simply bid them not to pay attention to impostors and those who promised to perform miracles by any means whatsoever (for His disciples had no need of such a warning), but from those who proclaimed themselves to be the Christ of God, and sought by certain fantasies to draw the disciples of Jesus to themselves, He sometimes says, "Then if anyone says to you, 'Lo, here is the Christ,' or 'There,' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will give great signs and wonders so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect; behold, I have told you beforehand. If therefore they say to you, 'Lo, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out; 'Lo, he is in the inner chambers,' do not believe it. For just as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will the…"
A coming of the Son of man be.' And where it says: 'Many will say to me in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not eat in your name, and in your name drink, and in your name cast out demons, and do many mighty works?" And I will say to them, "Depart from me, for you are workers of iniquity."' But Celsus, wishing to equate the miracles [wonders] of Jesus with human sorcery, says in these very words: 'O light and truth! By his own voice he expressly declares, just as you yourselves have written, that there will be others coming to you who use similar powers, wicked men and sorcerers.' And he names a certain B Satan who contrives such things; so that he himself is not able to deny that these things are nothing divine, but the works of wicked men. Yet, being constrained by the power of truth, he has both exposed the arts of others and at the same time refuted his own. How then is it not inconsistent to judge this one to be God, but those to be sorcerers, from the same works? For why should we consider the others to be wicked [rather than this one], if we are to use his own testimony? These things, indeed, he himself also confessed, that they are not signs of a divine nature, but of certain deceivers and most wicked men. C See then if Celsus is not clearly refuted in these matters for twisting the word; for what Jesus says about those who are going to perform signs and wonders is one thing, and what the Jew in Celsus claims is another. For if Jesus had simply told his disciples to beware of those who promised wonders, without adding what they would claim to be, his suspicion might perhaps have had room; but since those whom Jesus commands us to avoid declare themselves to be the Christ—which sorcerers do not do—and moreover he says that some who live evilly will perform powers in his name and cast out demons D from men, it rather (if one must say it so) banishes sorcery from the region and every suspicion against them; and the divinity of Christ is introduced, and the divinity of his disciples, because it is possible for someone, having used his name, and—I know not how—empowered by some force, to pretend that he himself is the Christ, and to appear to perform things similar to Christ, and for others, by the name of Jesus, to appear to do things like the true disciples.
A And Paul, in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, declares in what manner the man of B sin shall at some time be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every one that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. And again he says to the Thessalonians: "And now you know what withholds, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now holds, let him hold until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord C God shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." And explaining also the cause for the wicked one being permitted to reside in this life, he says: "Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Let someone now tell us if there is anything in these testimonies of the Gospel or the Apostle which could provide room for suspecting that the arts of jugglers were predicted as taking place there. Regarding the Antichrist, Daniel also published a prophecy which anyone who wishes may read. But Celsus distorts the words of Jesus. For He never said what Celsus affirms was said by Him, that others would come who would do the same miracles, although they were wicked and jugglers. For just as the power D of the Egyptian enchanters was not equal to that miraculous grace which was in Moses; and just as the outcome proved that the works of those others were mere trickery, while the works of Moses proceeded from divine virtue; so the things which the antichrists do, and those who sell themselves as being equal to the disciples of Jesus in performing miracles, are called "signs and lying wonders," which have their power "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish"; but the fruit of the miracles of Christ and his disciples is not deception, but the salvation of souls. For who would say that it is brought about by deception that life is improved and that malice is diminished more and more each day?
51. Celsus surmised something from Scripture when he said that Jesus had warned that a certain Satan would perform wonders. But from this he too hastily concludes that this is an admission that these wonders have nothing of divinity in them, but are the works of wicked men. Thus, by the same kind of reasoning, he concludes things that are of a vastly different nature. For just as a wolf and a dog, or a wood pigeon and a dove, are not of the same genus, even though their body and voice may appear to have some similarity...
A that which is accomplished by the power of God has nothing in common with that which occurs through sorcery. Furthermore, we shall say these things in response to the crafty arguments of Celsus: Do miracles occur through sorcery by the agency of evil demons, and yet no miracle is accomplished by the divine and blessed nature, but the life of men has brought forth the worse and has in no way arrived at the better? And it seems to me that this must be assumed in all cases, B that where something worse pretends to be of the same genus as the better, there must necessarily be something better which is the contrary of the evil. So too, regarding those things accomplished through sorcery, there is of necessity also an agency of the divine occurring in life. It follows from the same line of reasoning that either both must be rejected, and one must say that neither occurs, or else, by admitting the one—and especially the worse—one must also acknowledge the better. But if someone were to posit that things occur through sorcery, yet deny those which occur through divine power, he seems to me similar to one who would grant that there are sophisms and plausible arguments which, although devoid of truth, yet present a semblance of truth, but would contend that there is no truth among men C and that no dialectic exists which shrinks from sophisms. But if we once admit that it is a consequence of there being a reality—since magic and sorcery exist, performed by evil demons, charmed by curious incantations and obeying those who practice sorcery—that there must also be found among men something performing miracles by divine power, why should we not also strictly examine those who make promises regarding these powers, based on their life, their character, and the consequences of their deeds—whether they lead to the ruin of men or to the correction of their morals? Who is it that, serving demons, performs such things through certain incantations and sorceries? And who is he that, having become pure and holy D in his own soul and spirit, and I believe also in his body, before God, and having received a certain divine spirit, performs such wonders for the benefit of men and as an incentive to believe in the true God? But if, having put aside all prejudiced opinion regarding miracles, one must seek to know whether someone has done such things with a good or an evil intent, so that we may neither disparage everything nor admire and accept everything as divine, is it not evident from the miracles of Moses and Jesus, by which whole nations were established after their signs, that they accomplished by divine power those things which it is written they performed? For wickedness and sorcery would not have established a whole nation, which rose above not only statues and things set up by men, but even every created nature, and ascended to the unbegotten primal source of the God of all.
A
52. And since it is a Jew who says these things to Celsus, we would say to him: But tell me, good sir, why is it that you have believed that what is written among you, having been accomplished by God through Moses, is divine, and you endeavor to defend it against those who speak against it, ranking it as sorcery similar to that performed by the wise men of the Egyptians, yet you accuse that which was done by Jesus—and which is admitted even by you to have occurred—as not being divine, while imitating your own enemies, the Egyptians? For if the result, that is, the whole nation B established by the wonders of Moses, proves clearly that God was the one who performed these things through him, how would such a thing not be even more clearly demonstrated in the case of Jesus, who did greater works than Moses? For the latter, having found his own people, who were born of the seed of Abraham and who, through a continuous succession, were observers of circumcision and other rituals received from Abraham, already prepared and ready, led them out of Egypt and imposed upon them the divine laws, as you believe them to be. But this one, having dared a greater thing, introduced into the already existing civil structure, and into their ancestral customs and upbringing according to the established laws, a way of life in accordance with the Gospel. And just as Moses needed, in order to be believed by the senate and the people, those signs which it is written he performed, why then would Jesus not also need such powers, in order to be believed by those of the people who had been taught to ask for signs and wonders—powers which, by comparison C with those of Moses, were greater and more divine, being of a nature such as to turn them away from Jewish mythology and the human traditions among them, and to cause them to accept the one who taught these things and performed these works, in that he was greater than the prophets? For how was he not greater than the prophets, he who was proclaimed by the prophets as Christ and the Savior of the human race?
And all the arguments that the Jew of Celsus offers to those who believe in Jesus can be applied to accuse Moses as well; so that it makes no difference D to say that the sorcery of Jesus is similar to that of Moses, since both (as far as the words of the Jew of Celsus are concerned) can be subjected to the same charges. For example, regarding Christ, the Jew of Celsus says, "O light and truth! By his own voice he explicitly declares, just as your own writings attest, that others will come who will perform the same miracles, yet they are wicked men and sorcerers." Regarding Moses, one who did not believe the Jew—whether a Greek, or an Egyptian, or anyone else—might say: "O light and truth! By his own voice he explicitly declares, just as your own writings attest, that others will come who will perform the same miracles, yet they are wicked men and sorcerers." For it is written in your law: "If there shall rise up among me..."
you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and shall give you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder shall come to pass, whereof he spoke unto you, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams," and the rest. A And he who disparages the words of Jesus says that he names some Satan as a past master of such things. And one who applies this to Moses will say: "And he calls a prophet who dreams such things a past master of such things." Just as the Jew in Celsus says concerning Jesus, that "not even he himself denies that there is nothing divine in these things, but they are the works of wicked men," so he who disbelieves the writings about Moses, setting forth the things aforementioned, will use the same words against him: "So not even Moses himself denies that there is nothing divine in these things, but they are the works of wicked men." And he will do the same thing regarding this (46), "being constrained by the truth at once to reveal the things of others, and Moses himself confutes his own deeds." To the Jew who says: "How then is it not wretched, from the same works to consider one to be God, but others to be sorcerers?" one might say to him, because of the quoted words of Moses: "How then is it not wretched, from the same works, to consider one to be the prophet of God and His servant, but others to be sorcerers?" B And since Celsus, dwelling on the topic, added to the things I have set forth and made common: "For why should one from these things rather consider the others wicked, than this one, using him as a witness (47)?" we shall add to what is said, and we likewise ask: For why from these things, which Moses forbids us to obey when they display signs and wonders, should we consider those wicked, rather than Moses, from whose own words he disparaged others concerning signs and wonders? And saying more to the same effect, so that he may seem to strengthen the argument, he says: "These things, indeed, even he himself confessed to be not of a divine nature, but the signs of certain deceivers and most wicked men." Who is "he himself"? You, O Jew, say Jesus; but he who reproaches you, as being subject to the same accusations, will apply "he himself" to Moses. C After these things, he speaks to us, pretending (so that I may maintain what was initially proposed by the Jew) that Celsus' Jew, in the discourse he has with his fellow citizens, says to those who believed: "By what, then, were you persuaded (48), unless it was because he foretold that he would rise again after he had died?" And this, too, will be made common to the case of Moses, similar to the previous ones. For we shall say to him: By what, then, were you persuaded, unless because he wrote concerning his own death such things (49): "And Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there D in the land of..." 54. After these things, Celsus' Jew (which I will follow, as I proposed from the beginning) questions us thus in the discourse he has with those of his own people who adhered to Christ: "By what, then, were you persuaded? Is it that he foretold he would rise again after death?" And this is easy to turn back upon Moses, as [we did] the former things. For we shall also say: By what were you persuaded? Is it because he wrote these things about his own death: "And Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land..."
of Moab, by the word of the Lord, and he buried him in Moab, near the house of Phogor. And no one knows his sepulchre unto this present day"? A For just as the Jew calumniates, because he predicted that having died he would rise again, so to the one who says these things, one who maintains the same regarding Moses will say that Moses also wrote (for Deuteronomy is also his) that "no one knows his sepulchre unto this present day," honoring and exalting his burial, B as it was unknown to the race of men.
55. After these things the Jew says to those of his own people who have believed in Jesus: "Come, let us suppose that these things were predicted. But how many others, in order to soothe stupid listeners and make profit from error, have abused such prodigies? Thus they say of Zamolxis B among the Scythians, the slave of Pythagoras, and of Pythagoras himself in Italy; and of Rampsinitus in Egypt, whom they report to have played at dice in the underworld with Ceres, and from thence to have brought back a golden napkin accepted from her; and so of Orpheus among the Odrysae, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Hercules at Taenarum, and Theseus. But that must be considered: whether any one who was truly dead ever rose again in the same body. Or, while you pronounce that these things about others are fables and seem to be so, do you C seem to yourselves to have found a credible outcome for your own fable, when you thrust upon us the voice emitted from the cross at the final breath, the earthquake, and the darkness that arose; when you add that he who could not help himself while he lived, rose again from the dead, and in his body showed the marks of his punishment, and the traces of the nails in his hands? And who saw these things? A woman, as you say, fanatical, and if any other person addicted to the same magic arts, who either dreamt these things as his disposition was, or was deluded by a wandering opinion D and was lamenting, and they were believing Pythagoras himself to be a certain divine man, so much so that they handed over women to him, as if they would perceive something from his doctrine; whom he also reports to have been called Pythagoreans.
After these things they were saying that this king descended alive under the earth, to where the Greeks suppose the infernal regions to be, and there played at dice with Ceres; and sometimes he won, and sometimes he was defeated; and he returned back up again, obtaining from her a gift, a golden napkin.
A - what indeed has happened to countless others - which, desiring still more to strike the rest with awe by this wonder-working, and by means of such a falsehood to provide an opportunity for other impostors: since, then, it is a Jew who says these things, we reply to the Jew regarding our Jesus, extending the argument likewise to Moses and saying to him: "How many others perform such wonders as Moses does, working upon the gullibility of those who listen foolishly, for the sake of persuasiveness and in aid of their deceit?" Nay more, it is possible for one who distrusts Moses to cite Zamolxis and Pythagoras as wonder-workers, rather than the Jew, who does not have much of a penchant for Greek histories. B And the Egyptian, too, disbelieving the wonders concerning Moses, would plausibly cite Rampsinitus, saying that it is far more credible that he went down into Hades, played at dice with Demeter, and, having snatched a golden napkin from her, showed it as a token of his having been in Hades and having come up again, than that Moses should have written that he himself entered into the thick darkness where God was, and that he alone approached God, to the exclusion of the rest. C For he wrote as follows: "And Moses alone shall approach God, but the rest shall not approach." We, therefore, the disciples of Jesus, will say to the Jew who speaks these things — he who blames us for our faith in Jesus — "Answer on our behalf to the Egyptian and to the Greeks, who can retort against Moses the very things you have brought against our Jesus! And if you should labor much indeed to defend Moses, as you have a stinging and clear argument concerning him, you will unintentionally find yourself, in the very things you say to defend Moses, establishing that Jesus is more divine than Moses."
D 56. Since the Jew of Celsus says that the heroic stories about those who are said to have descended into Hades and returned from thence are impostures — as though those heroes had disappeared for a certain time, having withdrawn themselves from the sight of all men, and after this having shown themselves, as if they had returned from Hades (for such seems to be the meaning of his words regarding Orpheus among the Odrysae, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Heracles at Taenarum, and also concerning Theseus) — come, let us demonstrate that the story recorded about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead cannot be compared to these tales. For each one of those heroes, said to be in various places, could, when he wished, withdraw himself from the sight of men, and again decide to return to those whom he had left behind; but Jesus, having been crucified before all the Jews, and whose body, from the cross, in the sight of...
their people, was removed, how is it supposed that he feigned something similar to those heroes who are said to have descended into Hades and returned from thence? We say, perhaps, that as an apology for Jesus having been crucified, such a thing might be said, especially on account of the stories about heroes who were believed to have descended into Hades B by force, because if, by hypothesis, Jesus had died an obscure death, not such as to be clearly manifest to the whole nation of the Jews, and then afterward had truly risen from the dead, there would have been room for what was suspected of the heroes to be said of him also. Perhaps, then, in addition to other causes for Jesus being crucified, this can also contribute: that he died openly on the cross, so that no one might have any excuse to say that he voluntarily withdrew from the sight of men and appeared to have died, yet did not really die, but, appearing again when he wished, prodigiously feigned his resurrection from the dead. But as the disciples gave themselves entirely to a doctrine which they could not profess without the greatest danger, as the life of men was then, they themselves seem to me to be a clear and evident argument for the resurrection. For they would not have announced this doctrine with such constancy, if they had feigned that Jesus rose from the dead, so as not only to instill into others a contempt for death, but also to be the first themselves to undergo it.
57. Now see how inconsiderately the Jew in Celsus speaks C as if it were impossible for anyone to rise from the dead in his own body: "But this must be considered, whether anyone who has truly died has ever risen in his own body." These, in truth, are not the words of a Jew. For he joins faith to those things which are written in the third and fourth books of Kings concerning the children, of whom Elijah raised the one and Elisha the other. Indeed, for this very reason I believe that Jesus did not come to any other nation than the Jews, who had become accustomed to miracles, in order that, by comparing those things which had been believed with the things that were done by Jesus and told concerning him, they might at last acknowledge him, by whom and for whom greater and more incredible miracles were performed, to be greater than all those who had preceded him.
58. But further, after the Jew has brought forward the Greek histories concerning those who are said to have performed wonders, and concerning those who supposedly rose from the dead, he challenges those D of the Jews who have believed in Jesus: "Or do you think that, while the stories of others are considered and seem to be myths, your own story has found a fitting and credible conclusion to the drama by the cry he uttered on the stake when he was breathing his last?" We shall say to the Jew that we have considered the stories which you brought forward to be myths; but as for your own... [index: entries preserved]
as fables; but the ones which the Scriptures, common to us and you and held in equal honor by both sides, commemorate, we deny to be fables. Wherefore, we believe the stories they relate about those who have risen from the dead to be true and not fictitious, and likewise that Jesus was raised from the dead, just as both He Himself and the prophets predicted. And truly, this resurrection from the dead is more worthy of admiration than the others, for the reason that while those were raised by the prophets Elijah and Elisha, He was raised by no prophet, but by the Father who is in heaven. Thus, the fruit of His resurrection has become more abundant than the fruit of those others. For what benefit has the resurrection of the children recalled from the dead by Elijah and Elisha brought to the world which could compare with the blessings that have flowed to the world from the resurrection of Jesus, now that it has been made public and all have come to believe it, by the operation of divine power?
B He thinks the earthquake and the darkness to be mere displays of wonder; regarding these, we have defended ourselves as far as possible in the preceding portion, citing Phlegon, who recorded that such things occurred at the time of the Savior’s passion. To these points, however—where he adds, "And seeing that He who could not help Himself while alive, rose again when dead, and showed in His body the marks of His punishment, and the traces of the nails in His hands"—I ask, what do these words, "could not help Himself," signify? If it is with regard to virtue, we shall say that He helped Himself most thoroughly. For He neither uttered nor did anything improper; but truly He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, for the Gospel testifies that He did not open His mouth. But if he takes the phrase "to help Himself" to refer to indifferent and bodily matters, we say that we have already shown from the Gospels that He came to these things willingly. C Then, following this, having cited from the Gospel that He showed the marks of His punishment after rising from the dead, and the hands as they had been pierced, he questions, and says: "Who saw this?" And slandering Mary Magdalene, who is written to have seen Him, he said: "A woman, as you say, hysterical." And because she is not the only one recorded to have seen Jesus risen, but others also—and Celsus's Jew, reviling these things, says, "and whoever else of those belonging to the same delusion"—
D Then, as if this were a thing that could happen—I mean the idea of one having a phantasm concerning a dead man as if He were alive—he adds, like an Epicurean, and says: "That some person, according to a certain state of mind, has dreamed these things, or by a deluded opinion has imagined that he saw what he wished, and has reported such a thing to others; which, he says, has already happened to countless people." This, even if it might appear to be spoken with great force, is nevertheless just as much a construction of a necessary dogma, as if
one who has accepted this teaching were to believe in the soul's immortality, or at least in its endurance; just as Plato A in his dialogue *On the Soul* says that shadowy phantoms of those already dead have appeared to some around monuments. The phantoms, therefore, that occur regarding the souls of the dead come from a certain underlying substance, that is, the soul which subsists in what is called the "luminous" B body. But Celsus, not wishing this to be so, wants it to be that some people dream while awake, and because of their own desires allow themselves to be deluded by a wandering imagination. That to believe this happens in a dream is not unreasonable, but that it happens to those who are awake—unless they are not entirely in their right minds or are suffering from phrenitis or melancholia—is not credible. And foreseeing this, Celsus described the woman as suffering from a frenzy; which the recorded history does not indicate, C from whence he takes the opportunity to slander the events.
61. Thus Jesus, after his death, as Celsus thinks, was sending forth a phantasm of the wounds he had received on the cross, and was not truly wounded as such. But as the Gospel teaches—Celsus believes those parts of it which he wishes, in order to level an accusation, and disbelieves others—Jesus called unto himself...
74. Plato in Phaedo, p. 81: "It is heavy, my friend, and earthy and visible, that one must think this kind of soul to be; and by possessing this, the soul is weighed down and is dragged back into the visible B place, through fear of the invisible and of Hades, as it is said, wandering around monuments and tombs, around which indeed some shadowy phantoms of souls have been seen, such as those souls provide which have not been purely released, but participate in the visible; wherefore they are also seen." SPENCER.
75. On what is called the "luminous" body. Isidore said he had heard from him also that the soul has a certain "luminous" vehicle, called also "star-like" and eternal. And this star-like body is confined within this body of ours; in some, within the head, in others, within the right shoulder; which no one else is reported to have said.
76. "Not wishing." So correctly Codd. Regius, Basileensis, and the two Vaticani. Hoeschelius, however, and Spencer read simply "wishing." But the published books, etc. This reading is not to be rejected, provided the later "not" is deleted.
77. "But that it happens to those who are not entirely." Codd. Regius, Basileensis, and two Vaticani. The published books, however, read "but in those who are not," etc.
78. "Which does not indicate." The published books read this, from whence it does not indicate.
Irenæus, *Book II, ch. 34*: "The Lord most fully taught that souls not only continue to exist, not passing from body to body, but that they also preserve the character of the body in which they are also adapted, and remember the works which they did here, and from which they have desisted, in that account which is written of the rich man and Lazarus, D of him who was comforted in the bosom of Abraham; in which he says that the rich man knows Lazarus after death, and Abraham likewise."
Tertullian, *On the Soul, ch. 9*: "What now, regarding the fact that we also give an effigy to the soul?" He follows immediately: "But we do not merely inscribe bodily lines upon it, not only from a belief in corporality by estimation, but also from the constancy of grace through revelation; for, since we recognize spiritual charisms, we have deserved to obtain prophecy also after John. There is a sister today, etc." By the vision which was shown to her, he tries to confirm this opinion. "After the services were completed, and the people dismissed, as is the custom for her to report to us what she has seen (for they are examined most diligently, so that they may even be confirmed): Among other things, she says, a soul was shown to me bodily, and it appeared as a spirit, but not of an empty and void quality, nay, a quality that even promised it could be touched, tender, and lucent, and of an airy color, and in form entirely human. This vision—and God is witness, and the Apostle, a fit sponsor for charisms in the Church—do you not believe, even if the matter itself has convinced you of the individual points?" And a little later: "So also conceive of the effigy from your own sense; no other is to be attributed to the human soul than a human one, and indeed that of the body which each one carried about." The same, ch. 22: "We define the soul, born from the breath of God, immortal, corporal, effigied." See Hierocles, on *Pythag.* 67, 68, 69, who calls it [luminous]; *luminous vehicle*, p. 297; *the bodily vehicle of transparency*, p. 501; and which the oracles call the *subtle vehicle of the soul*. Galen, in the end of *Book VII of the Dogmas of Hippocrates and Plato*. SPENCER. See the notes to *Book I of De principiis, ch. 1, num. 7*.
A of the disciples who was unbelieving, and thought the paradox impossible. For he agreed with the woman who said she had seen him, as though it were not impossible for the soul of one who has died to be seen; but he no longer believed it to be true that he had risen in a solid body. Hence he did not say merely, "Unless I see, I will not believe," but also added, "Unless I put my hand into the place of the nails, and touch his side, I will not believe." These things were said by Thomas, who judged that it is possible for the body of a soul to appear to the senses, all according to the former form: ...And in magnitude and eyes like to her And voice. And often, ...And with garments like to her about her skin. And Jesus, having called Thomas, said: "Bring your finger here, and see my hands, and bring your hand, and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believing."
And it was consistent with all things told by the prophets about him (among which this also was), and with the things done to him, and with the events that occurred, for this to occur above all paradox. For it had been predicted from the person of Jesus in the prophet: B "My flesh shall dwell in hope; and you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you give your Holy One to see corruption." And after his resurrection he was, so to speak, in a certain intermediate state between the density of the body which he had before the passion, and the state in which the soul appears stripped of such a body. Wherefore, when his disciples and Thomas were together with them, "Jesus comes, the doors being closed, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace to you; then he says to Thomas: Bring your finger here," and the rest. And in the Gospel according to Luke, as Simon C and Cleopas were talking to each other about all that had happened to them, Jesus having stood by them, "walked with them." And their eyes were restrained so that they did not recognize him. And he said to them, "What are these words which you are exchanging with each other as you walk?" And when their eyes were opened and they knew him, then the Scripture says in these very words, "and he himself vanished from their sight." If, therefore, Celsus wishes to equate the things concerning Jesus—and those who saw him after the resurrection—with other phantasms, and with others who have been deluded by fantasies, yet to those who examine matters with a fair and prudent mind, D the event will appear far more paradoxical.
A
63. Subsequently Celsus, not without a certain discernment in his disparagement of what is written, says: "If Jesus truly wished to manifest his divine power, he ought to have appeared to his very detractors, and to him who condemned him, and in short to all people." And indeed, it appears to us also, according to the Gospel, that after the resurrection he did not show himself publicly to all as he had appeared before. But in the Acts it is written: "For forty days he appeared to the disciples and spoke of the kingdom of God"; yet it is clear from the Gospels that he was not always with them, but appeared in their midst "after eight days," when the doors were shut, and at other times in similar ways. B Likewise, Paul, towards the end of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, subtly intimates that Jesus did not appear generally after his passion as he had before: "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James; then of all the apostles; and last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." I consider that those things which explain why, when raised from the dead, he did not appear just as he had done before that time, are great and admirable, and of a value exceeding that of the judgment not only of the common believers, but even of those who have made much progress. C But concerning the many arguments which could be brought into this work—written as it is against the discourse that is injurious to the Christians and their faith—see if I am able, by reasonably setting forth a few points, to reach the understandings of those who will hear this defense.
64. Jesus, though one, was more than one in his conception, and did not appear in the same way to all who looked upon him. That he was many things according to the varied mode of considering him is evident from this passage: "I am the way, the truth, and the life"; and from this: "I am the bread"; and from this: "I am the door," and from countless others. D That, even when seen, he did not always appear in the same way to those looking at him, but according to the capacity of the observers, will be evident to anyone who considers why, when he was about to be transfigured on the high mountain, he did not take all the apostles with him, but only Peter, and James, and John: in that they alone were capable of beholding his glory at that time, and were able to witness Moses and Elijah appearing in glory
A and to hear them speaking together, and the voice sent from the clouds from heaven. But I think that even before he ascended the mountain, where the disciples alone came to him and he taught them the things concerning the beatitudes, when he was somewhere below the mountain, as evening had come, and was healing those brought to him, freeing them from every disease and every infirmity, he did not appear the same to the sick and those in need of his healing help as he did to those who, because they were in health, were able to ascend the mountain with him. But also, if he interpreted the parables in private to his own disciples, which were spoken with mystery to the crowds outside, just as those who heard the explanation of the parables were better off by hearing than those who heard the parables without the explanations; so also, I think, they were superior to them not only in the eyes of the soul, but, in my opinion, in the eyes of the body as well. And that Judas, future betrayer that he was, was not always seen as the same person is shown by his saying, as if to those who did not know him among the crowds accompanying him, «Whomever I shall kiss, he is the one.» B Such, I think, the Savior himself also indicates through the words: «Daily I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me.» Since, therefore, we hold such an opinion concerning Jesus, not only regarding his divinity, which is inward and hidden from the many, but also regarding his body, the form of which he changed for whom and when he wished; we say that before he stripped off the principalities and powers, and had died to sin, he was able to be seen by all; but after he stripped off the principalities and powers, and no longer had anything capable of being seen by the common crowd, they were not able to see him as all those who had seen him before had done. Hence, sparing them, he did not show himself to all after his resurrection from the dead.
And why do I say to all? For he was not always with his own apostles and disciples, nor did he always appear, as they were not capable of enduring the sight of him continuously. For C after the dispensation was fulfilled, his divinity was even more brilliant; which Cephas, who is Peter, as if he were the first-fruits of the apostles, was able to see, and after him the twelve, with Matthias having been appointed in place of Judas, and after them five hundred brothers at once; then he was seen by James, then by all others besides the twelve apostles, perhaps the seventy disciples, and last of all by Paul, as if by one untimely born, who knew well why he said: «To me, the least of all the saints, this grace was given.» And perhaps "the least" is equivalent to "one untimely born." Just as, therefore, no one could reasonably D reproach Jesus for not taking all the apostles up to the high mountain, but only those previously mentioned—
A just so, one might not reasonably reproach the apostolic accounts which introduce Jesus as having appeared after the resurrection not to all, but to those whom He knew to possess eyes capable of seeing His resurrection.
And it is useful, I think, for the defense of the matters at hand, that it is said of Him: "For to this end Christ died and rose, that He might have dominion both of the dead and of the living." [Rom. XIV, 9] See, for in these words, that Jesus died so that He might have dominion over the dead; and He rose so that He might have dominion not only over the dead, but also over the living. And the Apostle knows, indeed, that the dead over whom Christ has dominion are those counted in this way in the first epistle to the Corinthians: B "For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise incorruptible." [I Cor. XV, 52] The living, however, and those who are to be changed, are distinct from those who are to rise as dead. And the text concerning them runs thus: "And we shall be changed," which immediately follows, "The dead shall rise first."
Indeed, even in the first epistle to the Thessalonians, representing the same distinction in other words, he says that some are "those fallen asleep," and others are "the living," saying: "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so will God bring those who have fallen asleep through Jesus with Him. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep." [I Thess. IV, 13 sqq.] C The interpretation of these passages, such as it appeared to us, we have provided in the commentaries which we composed on the first Epistle to the Thessalonians.
66. Nor should you marvel if not all the multitudes who believed in Jesus see His resurrection, when Paul, writing to the Corinthians as though they were incapable of receiving more, says: "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." [I Cor. II, 2] Similar to this is also the statement: "For you were not yet able, nor even now are you able; for you are still carnal." [I Cor. III, 3] Thus, therefore, the Word, doing all things by divine judgment, set down the record concerning Jesus: that before the passion He appeared to most people indiscriminately, though not always; but after the passion He did not offer Himself to be seen in the same way, but with a certain selection D according to the measure of each person. Just as it is written: "The Lord appeared to Abraham," or to one of the saints; and this "appearing" did not happen always, but at intervals, and He did not appear to everyone: so also consider that the Son of God appeared to them with the same selection with which God appeared to the others, according to judgment.
A We have replied, therefore, as far as we were able in a work of this kind, to the statement: "If he really wished to make his divine power known, he ought to have appeared to his very assailants, to his judge, and to everyone at all." For it was not fitting that he should appear to the one who had condemned him, nor to those who had assailed him; for Jesus spared even the judge and the assailants, so that they might not be struck with blindness, such as that with which the men of Sodom were struck when they plotted against the hour of the angels who were being entertained by Lot. And this is set forth by these words: "But the men extended their hands and pulled Lot to themselves into the house, and they closed the door; and the men who were at the door of the house they struck with blindness, from the small to the great, and they were exhausted searching for the door." Now Jesus wished to make his divine power known to each of those who were able to see it, and to the extent that each could bear to see it. And for no other reason did He refrain from appearing than because He had regard for the limitations of their power to see Him. B And it is to no purpose that Celsus adds: "For he was no longer afraid of anyone among men, having died, and being, as you say, God; nor was he sent initially for this purpose, to remain hidden." For He was sent not only that He might be known, but also that He might remain hidden. For not everything that He was, was known even to those who knew Him; but something of Him escaped them; and to some He was not known at all. But He opened the gates of light to those who had been children of darkness and night, but had given themselves over to becoming children of day and light. And the Savior Lord came to us, as a good physician, rather to those full of sins than to the righteous. C
68. Let us see, then, in what way the Jew in Celsus speaks, that: "But if this was conducive to proving his divinity, he ought at least to have vanished from the cross immediately." And this seems to me similar to the argument of those who are enemies of Providence, and, being not at all content with things as they were created, describe other things, and say that the world would be better if it were as they have described. For where they describe things that are possible, they are shown to be creating worse things, as far as it depends on them and their description, than the world is; but where they seem not to be picturing things worse than they are, they are shown to be desiring things that are impossible by nature: so that on both counts they are ridiculous. Here, therefore, it is evident that it was possible for Jesus, who was God by nature, to vanish whenever He wished, and this is clear from the things written about Him, at least to those who do not accept some parts of the Scriptures to slander the doctrine, while considering the rest to be fabrications. For it is written in the Gospel according to Luke that, after the resurrection, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He gave it to Simon and Cleopas; but when they took the bread, their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him, and He vanished from their sight. D
A 69. But we wish to show how it would not have been more useful for the whole dispensation if He had suddenly vanished bodily from the cross. The events recorded to have happened to Jesus are not to be considered only in the bare letter and history, as if the whole truth consisted in these; for it is demonstrated to those who read the Scriptures more intelligently that each of them is also a symbol of something. Just as, therefore, His being crucified has its indicated truth in that saying, "I have been crucified with Christ," B and [truth] of that which is signified by the saying, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of my Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world," so also His death is necessary because of the saying, "For in that He died, He died unto sin once;" and because of the saying, "Being made conformable unto His death," and, "If we have died with Him, we shall also live with Him." So also His burial extends to those who, being conformable to His death, have been crucified with Him and have died with Him. Paul teaches us this in these words: "For we have been buried with Him by baptism, and we have risen with Him." But as for the things which were written concerning the burial, the sepulcher, and him who buried Him, I shall discourse more fully and more opportunely elsewhere, when I shall have to deal with them deliberately. For the present, it will suffice to consider what is meant by the clean linen cloth, in which the pure body of Jesus C had to be wrapped, and the new tomb which Joseph hewed out of the rock, in which no one had yet lain, or, as John says, "in which no man was yet laid." Consider now whether the harmony of the three evangelists, who took care to describe the tomb as hewed or carved in the rock, can compel anyone who searches out the reasons for what is written to inquire whether there be something hidden and abstruse in them, as also in the newness of the tomb, which Matthew and John recorded, and in that observation of Luke and John, that no dead person had been laid there. For it was necessary that He who was not like other dead, but even in death had given signs of life by the shedding of blood and water, and who was, so to speak, a new dead one, should be buried in a new and pure sepulcher: so that just as His birth was purer than any other birth, D inasmuch as He was not born from the union of both sexes, but from a Virgin, so also His burial might have purity, whose sign was that new tomb in which His body was placed, not of [common] stones.
A Now, one might discourse more sublimely and divinely concerning the narration of these places and the manner of ascending from the things that are recorded to have happened to the things of which these events were symbols, if one were to undertake this task at a suitable opportunity and with industry. But as far as the literal sense is concerned, it may be explained thus: it was necessary that He who had judged that He ought to undergo the punishment of the cross should observe those things that were the consequences of such a purpose; accordingly, that He should be buried as a man, just as He had been killed as a man and had died as a man. But let us imagine that it had been written in the Gospels that He had suddenly vanished from the cross: nevertheless, Celsus and other unbelievers would have taken that also in a bad sense. They would have said in a spirit of calumny: “Why did He vanish after the punishment? Why not before He suffered?” If, then, they think they can blame the narrative because they learned from the Gospels that He did not vanish immediately from the cross—whereas the Gospels report what was truly done, and do not invent, as they wish it had been better for Him to have vanished suddenly from the cross—how would it be just for them to withhold B faith from His resurrection; and further to believe [as well] that He, when He willed, stood in the midst of the disciples, although the doors were shut; and at another time, after having given bread to two of His acquaintances and held conversation with them, He vanished from their sight?
Whence is it said by Celsus’s Jew that Jesus hid Himself? For he says concerning Him: “What messenger, being sent, when he ought to deliver his message, ever hides himself?” For He did not hide Himself, who said to those seeking to arrest Him: “I was daily in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me.” But as for what follows, being repeated by Celsus, having once made our defense, we will be content with what has been previously said. For it is written in the preceding [part of the work] against the point: “Is it because, while He was in the body, He persuaded no one, and thrust His sermons upon all until they were nauseated; but because, when He was raised from the dead, He might have persuaded effectively, He showed Himself secretly to only one woman and His own associates?” But it is not even true that He appeared to only one woman; for it is written in the Gospel according to Matthew that, at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, C Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre; “and behold, there was a great earthquake: for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and coming, rolled back the stone.” And after a little, Matthew says: “And behold, Jesus met them” [the Maries just mentioned], saying: “Hail.” And they, coming up, took hold of His feet and worshipped Him. It is also said D that
A this is also refuted: “All were witnesses of the punishment, one of the resurrection”; where, indeed, this other claim is refuted: “He was not seen by all.” We add that those things which were human in Him were set before the eyes of all; but those things which were divine (I speak not of those things which relate to other matters, but of those things which differ among themselves), these not all could grasp. Observe, I beseech you, how manifestly Celsus contradicts himself here. For after he said that He showed Himself in secret to one poor woman and His own companions, he immediately adds: “All were witnesses of the punishment, one of the resurrection; which ought to have happened otherwise.” Therefore, if we listen to Celsus, it ought not to have been that all were witnesses of the punishment and one of the resurrection, but the opposite. But as far as these words sound, he desired both that which could not happen and that which is absurd, namely, that there should be one witness of the punishment and all be witnesses of the resurrection. For what other meaning is there to these words: “Which ought to have happened otherwise?”
71. Furthermore, Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, when He says: “No one knows the Father except the Son”; and: “No one has ever seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom B of the Father, He has made Him known.” He it is who, discoursing of God before His own genuine disciples, taught them those things which pertained to God: the traces of His words, which we find in the Scriptures, prepare for us a way to discourse concerning God. For here we read: “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” And there: “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” But there are also innumerable other reasons for which the Father sent Him. These, he who wishes can take either from the prophets, who foretold Him, or from the evangelists. Nor, indeed, will he learn few things from the apostles, and especially from Paul. He is also the one who illuminates those devoted to piety, and takes note of sinners. Ignorant of this fact, Celsus said: “If indeed He were about to illuminate those devoted to piety, and to have mercy on those who sin or who repent of their sins.”
72. After this he says: “Even if He wished to remain hidden, why was the voice from heaven heard, proclaiming Him the Son of C God? But if He did not wish to remain hidden, why was He punished, why did He die?” And he thinks that in these points he exposes a lack of harmony in those things which are written about Him, not seeing that He did not wish all things which concerned Him to be known to everyone and to the crowd, nor, in turn, that all things should remain hidden. The voice from heaven, therefore, proclaiming Him to be the Son of God and saying, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” is not written to have happened for the hearing of the crowds, as the Jew of Celsus thought. But also the voice from the cloud on the very high mountain was heard only by those who had ascended with Him. For divine things of this D sort
are heard by those alone whom the Speaker wills to hear. I do not yet say that the voice of God, as recorded, is by any means air struck or the striking of air, or whatever else is said in discussions about voice; wherefore it is heard by a hearing superior to the sensible and more divine. And when the Speaker does not will His voice to be audible to all, he who has better ears hears God, while he who is deaf in the hearing of the soul is insensible to God speaking. These considerations are in response to, "Why was the voice from heaven heard, proclaiming Him the Son of God?" And as for, "If He did not wish to remain hidden, why was He punished? Or why did He die?" it is sufficient to refer to what we said at greater length above concerning His passion.
B 73. To this, the Jew of Celsus adds what he considers to be a consequence, but which in no way follows. For because He willed that through the punishments He endured we should learn to despise death, it does not follow that, having been raised from the dead, He ought to have called all men openly to the light and taught them, for the sake of which He had come. For He had already called all to the light, when He said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. xi, 28). And Scripture explains the reason for which He came, whether by recounting the sermon which He gave—and at length—concerning the beatitudes, or what was said after that sermon, or in the parables, or in the conversations held with the scribes and Pharisees. And the Gospel according to John sets forth what Jesus taught, representing his greatness of speech, which lay in deeds more than in words. Indeed, it is clear from the Gospels that He spoke as one having authority, so that all marvelled.
74. The Jew of Celsus concludes all this as follows: "These things, then, we have brought forth to you from your own writings, for which we need no other witness; for you slay yourselves with your own sword." But it has been proved that the Jew has uttered many things against Jesus and against us which he did not draw from our Gospels. Nor do I think he has accomplished what he himself dreams—that we have fought against ourselves. The Jew exclaims a little later: "O highest God of the heavens, what God among men has not secured faith?" To which I respond thus: The Mosaic law relates that God was present to the Hebrews, not only when He was performing signs and wonders in Egypt, when He was opening a passage through the Red Sea, when He was leading them on with a pillar of fire and a luminous cloud, but also when He delivered the Decalogue; yet He did not secure faith from those who were witnessing it. For if they had had faith in Him whom they saw and heard, they would not have fashioned a calf for themselves; "they would not have changed their glory into the likeness of a calf that eateth grass" (Ps. cv, 20); they would not have said to one another of that calf:
A "These are thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up from the land of Egypt." Now, consider whether the Jews are not always the same. No matter how great the miracles God performed, no matter how clearly He was present with them, they did not bestow faith upon Him at all during all the time they remained in the wilderness, as it is written in the Law of Moses. And now, neither the wonderful advent of Jesus, nor the discourses held with power, nor the miracles performed in an unusual manner before all the people, could induce them to receive Him.
75. I think this is enough to prove to anyone wishing to demonstrate the unbelief of the Jews towards Jesus, that it was consistent with what was written from the beginning about that people. For I would say to the Jew speaking at Celsus's behest: "What God, having associated with men, has failed to gain faith, especially when He appears to those who were hoping for His arrival? How is He not recognized, who has come after being expected for so long?" I would reply: "What would you have us answer, good sirs, to your questions? Which, in your own judgment, seem to you to be the greater miracles: those which were done in Egypt or in the wilderness, B or those which we say Jesus did among you? For if, in your estimation, the former are greater than the latter, is it not evident that you, having been accustomed to derogate from the faith of the greater, have spurned the lesser? For you consider those things we say about Jesus to be lesser. But if, however, the miracles of Jesus are said to be equal to those which the Scriptures testify were performed by Moses, what is strange in the fact that the same people was equally incredulous here as it was there from the very beginning? For to you, through Moses, was given the first law, in which the sins of you, the unbelievers and transgressors, are recorded; while it is admitted by us that Jesus is the author of a new law and a new covenant. Therefore, in rejecting Jesus, you yourselves bear witness against yourselves that you are the sons of those who, in the wilderness, did not acknowledge God while He was making Himself so openly manifest. And what was said by our Savior aptly applies to your unbelief towards Him: C 'Truly ye bear witness that ye consent to the works of your fathers' (Luc. xi, 48); and in you this prophecy finds its fulfillment: 'And your life shall be hanging before your eyes, and ye shall not believe your life' (Deut. xxviii, 66). For you did not have faith in the Life which has made its abode among the race of men."
76. Nor could Celsus, while personating the Jew, find any way to attribute to him any objection in his argument which would not be brought against him from the legal and prophetic Scriptures. For he finds fault with Jesus, saying these things about him: "He is ready with threats and insults, shouting: Woe unto you, I foretell unto you." For in these things he openly confesses that he is unable to persuade—something which neither in God, D nor even in a wise man, would occur.
A See whether these things do not turn straight back upon the Jew. For God as well in the Law and the prophetic Scriptures threatens and rebukes, no less lightly than Jesus in the Gospel; of such a sort are the things in Isaiah, which go thus: "Woe unto them that join house to house, and lay field to field," and, "Woe unto them that rise up early, and follow strong drink," and, "Woe unto them that draw sins as with a long rope," and, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil," and, "Woe unto them that are mighty, that drink wine." And you could find ten thousand other such things. And are not the threats such as he mentions close to these: "Woe, sinful nation, a people full of sins, a wicked seed, unruly children," and the rest? To these he adds such great threats, which are not less than those which he says Jesus has spoken. Or is not the threat great which says, "Your land is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, overthrown by strange peoples"? And how are there not rebukes also in Ezekiel against the people, where the Lord is saying to the Prophet, "In the midst of scorpions do you dwell"? Therefore, O Celsus, have you not foolishly B made the Jew say concerning Jesus that, "He threatens and rebukes lightly, when he says: Woe unto you, and, I foretell unto you"? Do you not see that the very things which the Jew who is with you says in accusation of Jesus, these things could be said to him concerning God? For the God who is in the prophets is discovered to be liable to the same accusations of which the Jew, as he thinks, finds him guilty, as being unable to persuade. But I would also say this to the Jew who is with Celsus, who thinks that he is rightly finding fault with Jesus in these things, that there are as many curses recorded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, concerning which, if the Jew should apologize while standing by the Scripture, either in that way or even better, we shall C apologize concerning the rebukes and threats which are supposed to have been spoken by Jesus. And concerning the law of Moses itself, we shall be more able to offer a defense, inasmuch as we have been taught by Jesus to understand the legal writings more wisely than the Jew; although the Jew himself, if he perceives the intention of the prophetic words, will be able to show that God does not lightly threaten and rebuke when He says, "Woe," and, "I foretell unto you"; and how God, for the sake of the conversion of men, would say such things, which Celsus thinks not even a wise man would do. And Christians, indeed, knowing one God, the One in the prophets and in the Lord, will present the reasonableness of the supposed threats and the rebukes mentioned by Celsus. And I shall add a few things on this place to Celsus, who boasts that he is a philosopher and knows our affairs: D Hark you; if Mercury in Homer says to Ulysses:
A *Infelix, quorsum sic solus tesqua pererras?* He bears having an apology spoken by such a one, because the Homeric Mercury converses thus with Ulysses for the sake of his return; for to flatter and speak pleasant things belongs to the Sirens, to whom it is permitted, as they stand over a heap of bones, to say: *Huc ades, o decus et Græcorum splendor, Ulysses.* But if my prophets and Jesus himself, that they might convert their hearers, use the "Woe" or other forms of rebuke as you call them, these things have no bearing on the utility of the hearers, nor does he apply such speech to them as a Paeonian medicine. Unless perhaps you wish that God, or one who is a participant in divine nature, when he speaks to men, should attend only to what is suitable to his own nature and his own dignity, and never consider what is fitting to be promised to the men whom he governs and leads by his word, and in what manner he ought to speak to each one according to the character in question. But how ridiculous it is to say that Jesus could not persuade! For this hits equally not only the Jew, among whom the prophecies are filled with many such examples, but also the Greeks, whose wisest or most famous men could not persuade their own plotters, or judges, or accusers, that, having abandoned vices, they should embrace philosophy for the sake of attaining virtue.
77. After this the Jew says to him, B clearly according to what is pleasing to the Jews: “We hope indeed that we are to rise in the body and to have eternal life; and that he who is to be sent to us will be a pattern and leader of this resurrection, showing that there is nothing which is impossible for God.” I do not know indeed whether the Jew would say that the Christ expected by them was to provide in himself a pattern of the resurrection. But let it be; let it be granted that he both thinks and says this. And we respond to him who says that he deals with us from our own scriptures: “Read, good sir, those things in which you deem us worthy of blame; but have you not read that Jesus has risen, and that he is the firstborn from the dead? Or are these things not written because you do not wish them to be written?” But since the Jew in Celsus continues to speak and admits the resurrection of bodies, C I do not think it is now a suitable time to discourse on that subject to one who both believes and says that there is a resurrection of bodies; whether he provides a reasoned assent to it and is able to discourse well about the doctrine, or not, but rather feigns agreement with it. Let these things, therefore, be said to the Jew of Celsus. But when he adds: “Where is he now? that we may see and believe,” D
A we will say to him: Where, then, is he who spoke among the prophets and performed miracles, that we may see and believe that he is the portion of God? If it is permitted to you to apologize for the fact that God is not always present in visible form to the race of the Hebrews, shall the same apology not be permitted to us regarding Jesus, who, having once risen, persuaded his disciples of his own resurrection; and persuaded them to such a degree that, by what they endure, they demonstrate to everyone that, because they possess the vision of eternal life and the resurrection shown to them both by word and by deed, they treat as a mockery all the hardships of life?
After this, the Jew says: “Did he descend for this purpose, in order that we might disbelieve?” To which it will be said: He did not come for this purpose, that he might work disbelief in the Jews; but, foreknowing that it would happen, he foretold it, and made use of the disbelief of the Jews for the calling of the nations. For by their transgression salvation has come to the nations, regarding whom B Christ in the prophets says: “A people whom I did not know served me, at the hearing of the ear they obeyed me,” and, “I was found by those who did not seek me, I became manifest to those who did not ask of me.” And it is clear that the Jews were also punished for their life here, after they had treated Jesus as they did. Let the Jews, then, tell us if, when we accuse them, we may say: “How wonderful, then, for you is the providence and philanthropy of God, though you are being punished, and have been deprived of Jerusalem, and of the so-called sanctuary, and of the most solemn worship!” For whatever they may say in apology concerning the providence of God, we shall establish it all the more and to a better end, by saying that the providence of God was wonderful in having made use of the sin of that people for the calling of those from the nations through Jesus—those who were strangers to the covenants and aliens C to the promises, into the kingdom of God. And the prophets also foretold these things, that for the sins of the Jewish people God would choose not one nation, but chosen individuals from everywhere; and having chosen the foolish things of the world, he would make the “foolish nation” wise in divine doctrines, the kingdom of God being taken away from them and given to these others. It is sufficient, from many examples, for the present, to cite the prophecy from the Song of Deuteronomy concerning the calling of the nations, which is as follows, spoken in the person of the Lord: “For they have provoked me with those who are no gods, they have angered me with their idols; and I will provoke them with one who is not a people, with a foolish nation I will provoke them.”
Then the epilogue of the Jew to all these points says concerning Jesus: “He, therefore, was a man, and such an one as the truth itself declares and reason demonstrates.” But I do not know if he was a man, having dared to scatter throughout the whole world his D religion and teaching.
can do all things at will, and overcome all those who would oppose the propagation of his doctrine: kings, emperors, the Roman senate, the princes of all nations, and the populace. But how could human nature, possessing nothing more excellent in itself, change the minds of so great a multitude? And that not only of the wise—which would not be a matter for wonder—but even of those who are led by no reason, who are addicted to vices, and who are the more difficult to bring to temperance the less they are obedient to reason? Since, however, Christ was the power of God and the wisdom of the Father, he did these things, and still does them, even though the Jews and Greeks who are incredulous of his doctrine may choose not to agree. We therefore, instructed by the teachings of Jesus, never cease to believe in God, and to wish to recall those who are blind concerning the worship of God to a better way of life: although they accuse us of blindness, all the while being truly blind themselves, and charge us with deceiving men when they themselves, whether Jews or Greeks, are merely hearing and deceiving themselves. Truly noble is our "method" of deception, inasmuch as we cause those who are intemperate to become temperate, or to strive after temperance; those who are unjust to be just, or to tend toward justice; the imprudent to become prudent or to follow the path of prudence; and the timid, slothful, and weak to become spirited and brave—a virtue in which they are especially eminent when they contend for the sake of preserving piety toward God, the Creator of all. Jesus Christ came, therefore, not proclaimed by one prophet, but by all. And it was Celsus's ignorance that led him to bring forward the Jewish character saying that Christ had been predicted by only one prophet. And when the Jew in Celsus—speaking as if according to his own law—has added a few other things which are not worth mentioning, he brings his discourse to an end. Here, therefore, I too shall bring the second book against his discourse to a close. With God giving the grace, and the power of Christ flowing into our soul, we shall endeavor in the third book to refute the rest of what was written by Celsus.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS: BOOK THREE
1. In the first volume which we wrote against the book inscribed by Celsus with the title *True Discourse*—which was composed against us—we have, in accordance with your command, most faithful Ambrose, examined in order its preface and what follows, A B C D
examining each of the points mentioned, until we arrived at the speech of the Jew, which he has fabricated against Jesus. In the second book, we replied as best we could to all the points that the Jew in his work brings against us who believe in God through Christ. We now embark upon this third book, in which our intention is to contest what he himself proposes in his own person. A He says, then, that "Christians and Jews contend most foolishly against one another," and he states that the discussion between us concerning Christ differs in no way from the dispute called in the proverb "a fight about an ass's shadow." He thinks there is nothing serious in the inquiry between Jews and Christians, since both agree that it was predicted by the Holy Spirit that a Savior would come to the human race, but they differ as to whether the one who was predicted has come or not. For we Christians believe that Jesus has come according to the oracles of the prophets; but the majority of the Jews are so far from believing in Jesus that even those who were living at that time laid snares for him, while those of the present day, approving of what others formerly dared to do against him, accuse Jesus of having imagined through certain magical arts that he was the one whom the Jews call Christ, and whom the prophets foretold would come.
B Let Celsus and those who are pleased with his arguments against us tell us whether it is like an ass's shadow that the prophets of the Jews predicted the place of birth of the leader of those who live virtuously, who are termed the portion of God; and that a Virgin would conceive Emmanuel; and that the one predicted would perform signs and wonders such as these; and that his word would run with such speed that his sound would go forth into all the earth, through the apostles; what he would suffer being condemned by the Jews; and how he would rise again. For did the prophets say these things by chance, without any persuasiveness that moved them not only to say them, but also to judge them worthy of being recorded? Or did the great nation of the Jews, which long ago received its own land to inhabit, without any plausible reason proclaim some as true prophets, while rejecting others as false prophets? And was there nothing that moved them to number the words of those who were henceforth considered prophets among the books of Moses which they believed to be sacred? Can those who charge the Jews and Christians with folly demonstrate to us that the nation of the Jews could have remained in existence, C had there been no promise of foreknowledge among them? And that the nations surrounding them, each according to its own institutions, believed in prophecies from the gods they supposed to be their own; yet they alone—those instructed in the fear of D God—had no evidence to distinguish between true prophecy and the appearance of it, if they were merely relying on an "ass's shadow"? But these matters have been sufficiently argued.
A and to receive oracles from those whom they deemed gods among them; but those alone, who had been taught to despise all those among the nations who were accounted gods—as being not gods, but demons (since their prophets had said, "All the gods of the nations are demons")—had no one who promised to prophesy to them, and was able to draw away those who, through a desire for foreknowledge of the future, were going to desert to the demons among others? Consider, then, whether it was not necessary that a whole nation instructed to despise the gods of other peoples should be well-provided with prophets who showed forth something greater B than that, and which surpassed absolutely every oracle [found] everywhere.
Moreover, miracles were performed everywhere, or in many places. Celsus himself mentions in the following parts that Asclepius was healing and foretelling future events in all the cities that were sacred to him, for example in Tricca, Epidaurus, Cos, and Pergamon; and [he mentions] Aristeas of Proconnesus, and a certain Clazomenian, and Cleomedes the Astypalaean. And among the Jews alone, who claimed to be sacred to the God of the universe, there was no sign, no prodigy, which could assist and confirm their faith in the Creator of all things, along with the hope of a better life hereafter? How can they imagine such a thing? For they would have immediately turned to the worship of the demons that were prophesying and healing diseases, and would have abandoned the God who was believed to aid them in word indeed, but in reality had never shown Himself present. But if this did not happen, but [they] rather endured innumerable afflictions C so that they might not abjure their Judaism and...
(But) was it possible for such a thing to occur? For (the Jews) would immediately have turned to the worship of the demons that foretold the future and cured diseases, having abandoned the God who was believed to aid them in word merely, but who had in no way demonstrated His own appearance. If this has not come to pass, but they have even endured countless hardships so as not to abjure their Judaism—and, finally, having shattered the wood of the chest, since they found Cleomedes neither alive nor dead, they sent men to Delphi to ask what might be the case regarding Cleomedes. These men, they say, were given this response by the Pythia: *Cleomedes the Astypalaean is the last of the heroes,* *Whom you honor with sacrifices as no longer being mortal.* From this time forth, the Astypalaeans accord honors to Cleomedes as a hero. D They say that in a previous Olympiad, Cleomedes the Astypalaean, while boxing with Iccus the Epidaurian, killed Iccus in the match; and having been condemned by the Hellanodicae for having acted unjustly, and being deprived of the victory, he became deranged from his grief and returned to Astypalaea. Standing there in a school room of some sixty children, he overturned the column that supported the roof; and when the roof fell on the children, being stoned by the citizens, he fled into the temple of Athena. Having entered into a chest lying in the temple, and having pulled the lid over himself, the Astypalaeans labored in vain, seeking to open the chest. But how can such a thing be?
A in Assyria, now in Persia, and now under Antiochus, is it not reasonably demonstrated to those who disbelieve the marvelous histories and prophecies that such things were not fabrications, but that some divine Spirit, dwelling in the pure souls of the prophets who had taken upon themselves every labor on behalf of virtue, stirred them to prophesy some things to their contemporaries, others to those who should come after, and especially concerning some Savior who was to come to the human race?
If this is so, how is it that Jews and Christians dispute with one another "about the shadow of an ass," B inquiring from the prophecies, to which both equally accord faith, whether he who is prophesied has come, or whether he has not yet come but is still expected? Even if it were granted, for the sake of the argument, to Celsus that Jesus is not the one whom the prophets heralded, still no less would it be "about the shadow of an ass" that the investigation of the meaning of the prophetic Scriptures would be, so that what is proclaimed might be clearly manifested: what kind of person it was prophesied he would be, what he would do, and if possible, when he would appear. I have already shown above, however, by citing a few prophecies out of many, that Jesus is the Christ who was prophesied. Therefore, neither Jews nor Christians are in error when they believe that the prophets spoke by the inspiration of God; but they are in error who hold false opinions concerning the Christ whom the prophets said was to be expected, although the true discourse of the prophets has taught us both who he was to be and where he was to be born.
5. After this, Celsus, thinking that the Jews were by birth Egyptians C and had left Egypt because they had rebelled against the Egyptian community and held in contempt the religious rites customary in Egypt, says, "that those things which the Egyptians suffered at their hands, the same things were suffered by the Egyptians at the hands of those who joined themselves to Jesus and believed in him as Christ; and that in both cases, the motive for the innovation was a seditious spirit against the community." It must be observed what Celsus is doing here. The ancient Egyptians, having treated the race of the Hebrews harshly—who had been compelled by famine to enter Egypt D and dwell there—and having inflicted injuries upon them while they were suppliants and guests, paid the penalties which it was fitting should be inflicted by divine providence upon a people who had conspired against guests from whom no injury had been received. Whence, having been chastised by the scourges of God, they with difficulty and after little time granted them permission to depart to wherever they wished, those whom they had unjustly reduced to servitude. Being therefore self-loving, and preferring their own kinsmen of any kind to even the most righteous strangers, they left no slander untried which they could speak against Moses and the Hebrews; so that, not daring entirely to deny the marvelous miracles of Moses...
they ascribed them to magic arts, not to divine power. Moses, however, not as a charlatan, but as a pious man, devoted to God, the Lord of all, and a partaker of the divine Spirit, gave laws to the Hebrews just as God dictated them to him, and recorded the events that had occurred exactly as they had truly taken place.
A 6. Therefore, Celsus was not a fair judge of the matters that are narrated in one way by the Egyptians and in another way by the Jews; but, being preoccupied with a certain love for the Egyptians, he agreed with the oppressors of guests as if they were reporting the truth, while stating that the Hebrews, oppressed by injuries, had departed from Egypt by way of sedition. Nor did he see that it could not have been possible for such a great multitude of seditious Egyptians, who had their origin in a faction, to have coalesced into a nation that at the same time, in the midst of sedition, changed its language, so that those who had until then used the Egyptian tongue could suddenly master the Hebrew. But, even if I were to grant for the sake of argument that, having left Egypt, they abhorred the language in which they had been nurtured, why then did they not speak the language of the Syrians or the Phoenicians1, rather than the Hebrew language, which is far different from both? From all of which it is proved to be false that certain people, Egyptian by race, had stirred up a sedition against the Egyptians, departed from Egypt, come into Palestine, and inhabited that region which is now called Judaea. For the ancestral language B of the Hebrews existed before they traveled into Egypt; and the Hebrew letters, which Moses used in writing the five books that are considered sacred among the Jews, are different from the Egyptian ones.
7. But just as it is false that, «because the Hebrews were of the Egyptian race, their society necessarily had its beginning in sedition,» so also it is not true that «other Jews in the age of Jesus conspired in a sedition against the common body of the Jews, and that they had followed Jesus.» For neither Celsus nor those who share his sentiments can demonstrate that any seditious act was committed by the Christians. And indeed, if the Christian society, which drew its origin from the Jews—those who were permitted to take up arms in defense of their own and to kill their enemies—had been given a place by sedition, certainly the Lawgiver of the Christians would not have utterly forbidden C the killing of any human being. And that this is already established by the patriarchs is evident from the fact that the heap of witness in Genesis (xxxI, 47) is called *Yegar Sahadutha* in Syriac by Laban, while it is called *Galed* in Hebrew by Jacob. But we never read that the Phoenician or Canaanite language was remarkably different from the Hebrew, or that the Jews conducted business with the Canaanites or Phoenicians through an interpreter. On the contrary, the woman of Jericho, Rahab, and the spies sent by Joshua converse with each other as if they were partakers of the same or not very different languages. See Samuel Bochart’s *Sacred Chronology* (Part II, Bk. 1, Ch. 1 et seq.), where he proves by many other arguments that the Phoenician language was closely related to the Hebrew.
A His teaching was that it would never be right to allow his own disciples to offer violence to any man, not even to one who was most unjust. For he did not consider it becoming to his divine legislation to suffer the slaughter of a human being, whatever sort of man he might be. Nor would the Christians, who trace their origin to a sedition, have adopted such peaceful laws that they should be slaughtered like sheep, and that it should not be permitted for them to take vengeance upon their persecutors.
But even one who wishes to examine things more deeply can say regarding those who departed from the land of Egypt that it happened in a marvelous way that the whole people suddenly, as if God had inspired them, adopted the language B which is called Hebrew. To this point pertains what one of their prophets said: «When they went out from the land of Egypt, they understood a language which they had not known.»
8. It must also be argued that they were not Egyptians who departed from Egypt with Moses. For if they were Egyptians, their names ought to have been Egyptian, since every language has its own proper appellations. If, therefore, their names were Hebrew, it is clear that they were not Egyptians. And since Scripture is full of Hebrew names, and of those who imposed such names upon their children, it is clear that what the Egyptians say—that they were Egyptians who were expelled from Egypt with Moses—is false. It is also clearly evident that they were sprung from Hebrew parents, as the history written by Moses testifies, and that they used the language from which they took the names to impose C upon their children.
But as for the Christians, because they have kept the benign and gentle law which they were taught, not to take vengeance upon their enemies, they have attained that which they have attained—and even if they had been given the liberty to wage war, and had been provided with the necessary aids for this purpose, they would not have done so. They received this from God, who has always fought for them, and at opportune times has restrained those who rose up against the Christians and intended to kill them. For by way of reminder (so that, seeing few struggling for piety, others might become stronger and despise death), few have died for the Christian religion, and they were very easily numbered. God blocked the destruction of their entire nation; for He willed that it should stand, and that the whole earth should be filled with this saving D and most holy teaching. Again, so that the weaker might breathe again from the fear of death, God provided for those who believe, dissipating by His will alone every plot formed against them, so that neither kings, nor local governors, nor the common people could be further incited against them.
This, then, concludes our response to what Celsus stated regarding the idea that «at the beginning a sedition occurred, and that the Jews originated from this, and afterward these became Christians.»
A 9. Now, because he clearly tells lies in what follows, come, let us set forth his own words where he says: «If all men wished to become Christians, they would no longer wish it.» That such an assertion is a lie is evident from the fact that Christians, as far as lies in their power, take care that their doctrine be scattered everywhere throughout the world. For which reason some have made it their business to go about not only cities, but even villages and country estates, so that they might win others over to the pious worship of God. Nor could anyone say that they do this for the sake of gain, since at times they do not even accept the necessities of life. And if ever, by reason of this need, they are compelled to accept them, they are satisfied with only as much as is necessary, even if many might wish to bestow more upon them. B But perhaps now, when in the multitude of those who embrace this doctrine there are some who are rich, some who hold positions of authority, and even delicate and noble women who receive those who come from this teaching, one might dare to say that some individuals preach the doctrine of the Christians out of a desire for vainglory. But at the beginning of Christianity, when the danger was greatest for its teachers, this suspicion could have had no place. And even today, the ignominy in which they are held by outsiders is greater than the glory they have among their own, which is not even granted to all. It is evident, therefore, that it is a lie—the claim that if all men wished to be Christians, they would refuse this.
10. Look also at what he claims to be the proof of this: «In the beginning,» he says, «while they were few, they were of one mind. But when their number was scattered abroad, they were immediately divided into sections and split, and each wants to have their own factions; for they desired this from the beginning.» That in comparison to the future multitude the Christians were a few in the beginning is clear; yet they were not altogether few. C For what stirred up envy against Jesus and incited the Jews to lay snares against him was the multitude of those following him into the wilderness, with five thousand and four thousand men accompanying him, besides the number of women and children. For there was such a power of attraction and enticement in the words of Jesus that not only men were willing to follow him into the wilderness, but also women, forgetting their feminine weakness and neglecting their reputation, followed that Teacher into the desert. Children also, who otherwise have no real affection, followed their parents, perhaps even drawn by his divinity so that they too might enjoy his divinity, and made the journey together with their parents. But let it be granted that they were few at the beginning: does this prove that Christians would refuse to persuade all men of their doctrine?
11. He adds: «They were all of one mind.» And he does not see even in this that right from the beginning, concerning the interpretation of the D sacred books and the faith of the believers, there were disagreements.
Even while the apostles were still preaching, and the eyewitnesses of Jesus were teaching His doctrines, no small dispute arose among those who had come to the faith from Judaism concerning the Gentiles who were approaching the Word. For they asked whether it was necessary for them to observe the Jewish customs, or whether they should be freed from the burden of pure and impure foods, as this was not essential for those who had abandoned their ancestral traditions among the Gentiles and believed in Jesus. And in the Epistles of Paul, who lived during the time of those who had seen Jesus, we find mention of some who raised questions about the resurrection, whether it had already taken place, and concerning the day of the Lord, whether it was imminent or not. And also that which says, "Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith," makes it clear that from the beginning there were some misconceptions, not—as Celsus thinks—when a large number of believers had already come to be.
Then, since he blames us, as if accusing the Word, for the sects that exist in Christianity, B saying: "Scattered into a multitude, they are again divided and cut, and each one wishes to have his own faction"; and he says that "again separated by the multitude, they condemn one another, keeping a common name, if indeed they still keep it. For they were ashamed to cast off this alone; but as for the rest, they have different institutions." To this we shall respond that there arise no sects of any matter, unless its beginning is serious and useful for life. For since medicine is useful and necessary for the human race, and there are many questions in it concerning the method of healing bodies, for this reason sects in medicine C are admittedly found among the Greeks; and I believe also among the barbarians, as many as profess to practice medicine. Again, since philosophy promises truth and the knowledge of things that are, and advises how one ought to live, and attempts to teach what is beneficial to our race—but the matters in question have a great deal of difficulty—for this reason, very many sects have been established in philosophy, of which some are more famous, and others not so. Also, Judaism provided an occasion for the birth of sects through the different interpretation of the writings of Moses and the prophetic words. D Therefore, since Christianity appeared to be something noble to men—not only, as Celsus thinks, to the more servile, but also to many of the scholars among the Greeks—sects necessarily arose, not at all through a spirit of sedition and contention, but because very many of those who were learned sought to understand
A the divine words—which all held equally to be divine—and interpreted them in different ways. Thus, sects came to be named after those who, while they admired the origin of the Word, were moved by certain plausible arguments to disagree with one another. Yet one should not reasonably shun medicine because of the sects that have arisen within it, nor should anyone hate philosophy because of the "sects" it has produced, nor should the sacred books of Moses and the prophets be condemned because of the sects that have arisen among the Jews.
13. If this holds true, why should we not likewise make an apology for the sects among the Christians? Regarding these, it seems to me that Paul has said, in a very admirable way: "For there must also be sects among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest" B (I Cor. xi, 19). For just as he is truly "approved" in medicine who has been versed in diverse sects, and has diligently examined most of them, and then chosen the best; and just as he truly makes progress in philosophy who does not cling to a superior doctrine until he has exercised himself in most others; so I would say that he is the wisest Christian who has accurately scrutinized the sects of Judaism and Christianity. Whoever disparages our doctrine because of these sects deserves also to disparage the teaching of Socrates, from whose school many other schools have arisen that do not agree with one another at all; nor would he spare the dogmas of Plato, whose pupil Aristotle abandoned his doctrines in favor of new opinions, as we said above. C Furthermore, it seems to me that Celsus became aware of certain sects that do not even retain the name of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps he may have heard of those called Ophians, and of the Cainians, and of any other such sect that in all things departed from Jesus. But this constitutes no argument against the Christian doctrine.
14. He adds: "Their confederacy is more to be wondered at, in that it is shown to be founded on no solid reasoning. But instead of solid reasoning, there was sedition, and from that, anticipated profit, and the fear of outsiders. These things confirm their faith." And regarding this D...
A we shall say that our creed is based on a hypothesis—or rather, not even on a hypothesis, but on a divine operation—in such a way that its origin is God, who in the prophets taught men to hope for the advent of Christ, who would save mankind. For insofar as this is not truly refuted, even if it may seem to be refuted by the faithless, to that extent the Word stands firm as the Word of God, and Jesus is proven to be the Son of God, both before He became man and after He became man. I say, furthermore, that even after the incarnation, it is always found to be most divine by those who have the eyes of the soul most sharp-sighted, and that it truly descended to us from God, and that it did not derive its origin or its subsequent progress from human ingenuity, but from the manifestation of God, who in His manifold wisdom and manifold powers established first B Judaism, and after it, Christianity. Thus, the idea that it is considered a sedition, and that it is the profit derived from sedition that is the origin of the doctrine which has converted and bettered so many, has been refuted.
15. That our creed is not maintained by the fear of outsiders is also clear from the fact that this, by the will of God, has ceased for a long time now. And it is likely that even that safety which has been born in the believers with regard to this life will cease, whenever those who in every way slander the Word think that the cause of the present C extensive sedition in the multitude of believers lies in the fact that they are not being fought against by the rulers as they were in past times. For we have learned from the Word neither to be slack in peace and give ourselves over to ease, nor, when we are fought against by the world, to lose heart and depart from the love of the God of all things in Jesus Christ. Clearly, then, the
A reverence of our beginning we exhibit, and do not—as Celsus imagines—conceal it, when we instill into those who first come to us a contempt for idols and all statues, and furthermore, lifting up their minds from serving created things instead of God, we raise them toward the Creator of all things; B clearly demonstrating the One who was foretold, both from the prophecies concerning Him (and these are many) and from what is accurately handed down to those capable of hearing more wisely from the Gospels and the apostolic voices.
16. But what kind of manifold bugbears do we drag in, or what terrors do we fabricate, as Celsus writes without proof? Let him who wishes show it. Unless perhaps Celsus considers our teaching—which we affirm with various proofs, both from the Scriptures and from reasonable discourse—that God is a judge and demands from all men an account of what they have done, to be a source of "terrors." And yet (for truth is beloved), Celsus says at the very end: "May the gods forbid that I, or others, or any human being should abandon this dogma, that the unjust shall be punished and the just shall be deemed worthy of rewards." By what, then, are the bugbears—if you remove this opinion concerning punishments—that we use to attract men? And since he also says that "we have invented evil opinions from an ancient doctrine, and first chant them to men, as those who make a din around them who are being initiated into the rites of the Corybantes," we shall ask him: From what ancient doctrine are those evil opinions derived? For whether he says from the Greek, which itself teaches that there are tribunals beneath the earth, or from the Jewish, which among other things prophesies another life after this one; he will never be able to demonstrate that we, who endeavor to believe with reason, having attained the truth incorrectly, C order our life according to such dogmas.
17. Furthermore, he wishes to compare the matters of our faith to the customs of the Egyptians: "If you approach them, at once there are visible splendid shrines, and groves, and great and beautiful vestibules, and admirable temples, and magnificent surrounding enclosures, and religious ceremonies quite full of arcane things; but when you have entered and reached the inner sanctums, you see either a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog being worshipped." But what is the analogy to these things, which at first sight appear splendid to those approaching the Egyptians, in our own faith? And what is the analogy to those irrational animals worshipped inside, beyond those glorious vestibules? Shall he say that the prophecies, and the God over all, and the contempt for statues are indeed things worthy of veneration; D while Jesus Christ, who was crucified...
is something to be compared with the worshipped brute beast? If he says this—for I do not think he will say anything else—we shall answer A that many things have already been said by us above in support of the matters concerning Jesus, showing that even those things which appear to have happened to Him according to the flesh have come to pass usefully for the universe, and savingly for the whole world.
18. Because the Egyptians, while speaking sublimely B about their irrational animals, claim that they are certain symbols of God—or whatever else it may have pleased those who are called their prophets to name them—he says that "a phantasy is sent to those who have learned these things, so that they may not think they have been initiated in vain." But as for the things in our teachings that are revealed to those who are well-educated in Christianity, through the gift called by Paul "the word of wisdom through the Spirit," and "the word of knowledge according to the Spirit," Celsus does not seem to me to have even formed a conception of them—not only from what he has just said, but also from the things he adds in what follows to discredit the society of Christians; namely, that "they exclude every wise man from their teaching of the faith, and invite only the foolish and those of servile character." Concerning these, we shall see in due time when we come to that passage.
19. He adds: "We laugh at the Egyptians, although they present many riddles that are not to be despised, since they teach that eternal ideas, and not, as the common people think, perishing animals, are to be worshipped; but we are fools, who, in the things that are said by us about Jesus, bring forward nothing nobler than the Egyptian goats and dogs." C To which we reply: Be it so, excellent sir, that you rightly extol with deserved praise the many and not-to-be-despised riddles and the explanations wrapped in mystery that the Egyptians offer about their animals; but you do not act rightly when, in order to defame us, you induce your mind to think that we say nothing, and that all our things are futile and of no value, when we discourse about Jesus to those who are in Christianity as the "perfect," according to the wisdom of our doctrine. Concerning these, as being capable of hearing the wisdom in Christianity, Paul says: "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that 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" (1 Cor. II, 6 seq.).
And we say to those who agree with Celsus, that if Paul thought there was no D excellent wisdom, he would not have promised to speak wisdom among the perfect. Since, however, according to his own boldness, he says that he has nothing wise... 20. Does Celsus ask, if Paul had no notion of excellent wisdom formed in his mind, would he have promised that he would speak wisdom among the perfect? But since, the things which were his own...
A he promised; we reply to him saying: First explain yourself, you who speak of these Epistles, and having looked intently at the meaning of each word in them (to name, for example, those to the Ephesians, and to the Colossians, and to the Thessalonians, and to the Philippians, and to the Romans), demonstrate both things: that you have understood the words of Paul, and that you have shown some of them to be silly or foolish. For if anyone gives himself to reading with attention, I well know that either he will admire the mind of the man, who expresses great things in common language, or, if he does not admire it, he himself will appear ridiculous, whether he is attempting to explain it as having understood the man's meaning, or is attempting to argue against and overthrow what he has fancied himself to have understood.
21. And I do not yet speak of the deep understanding of everything written in the Gospels, which deserves to be observed. Each of these contains a point that is manifold and hard to discern, not only for the many but even for some among the intelligent; it involves the deepest interpretation of the parables, which Jesus spoke to those outside, keeping their clarity for those who had surpassed the external hearing and who privately joined themselves to Him in the house. A person will also wonder, considering what reason there is for some to be called "those outside" and others to be "in the house." Indeed, for one who is able to grasp it, will the migrations of Jesus—at one time ascending the mountain to say or do certain things, or to be transfigured, and at another time below healing the sick who are not able to ascend where His disciples were following Him—not be a matter of admiration? But this is not the place to relate what is truly august and divine in the Gospels, or to relate the mind of Christ in Paul, that is, the mind of the Wisdom and the Word speaking within him; that would be out of season. But what I have said will be enough to repress the derision of Celsus, which is unworthy of a philosopher, for he dared to compare the inner and mystical mysteries of the Church of God with the cats, or apes, or crocodiles, or goats, or dogs of the Egyptians.
22. And so that the buffoon might leave no form of derision and mockery against us, in his book written against us he names the Dioscuri, and Hercules, and Aesculapius, and Bacchus, who among the Greeks were believed to have been brought from the rank of men into the number of the gods; and he says: "We do not endure it that they should be held as gods, because although they were men, they were the first, even though they displayed many and noble things on behalf of men; yet, we affirm that Jesus, having died, was seen by his own followers." And he adds to this indictment, that when we say "he was seen," we wish for it to be understood as a shadow. We reply to this, that Celsus has craftily neither clearly expressed that he does not worship such gods, for he was afraid that someone who might happen upon his book B C D
A should deem him an atheist if he were to advocate for the truth as it appears to him; nor, indeed, would he have feigned that he himself counts them as gods. For we would have made a response to either case. Come then, let us say the following to those who do not believe them to be gods: Are they not, to begin with, in existence at all? But, just as some people think regarding the human soul that it perishes immediately, has the soul of these beings also perished? Or, according to the opinion of those who say that it endures or that it is immortal, do they also endure, or are they immortal; and are they not gods, but heroes; or are they not even heroes, but simply souls? If you suppose them not to exist, then the argument concerning the soul, which is our primary concern, must be established; but if they do exist, then the argument about immortality must be accepted, not only from those Greeks who have spoken well about it, but also in accordance with what is pleasing to divine teachings. And we shall show that it is not possible for these beings, having become polytheistic, to have come into a better place and portion after their departure from here, by bringing forward the stories about them, in which is recorded the great intemperance of Hercules, and his womanish service to Omphale, and the matters concerning Asclepius, how he was struck by the thunderbolt of their Zeus. It will also be told concerning the Dioscuri, how, B "At times they live, and perish on alternate days, Yet each receives an equal honor with the gods," being those who die many times. How then do they think it reasonable that any one of these should be considered a god or a hero? We, on our part, demonstrate the matters concerning our own Jesus from the prophetic scriptures, and after this we compare the history concerning him with the histories of those beings, to show that no intemperance of his is reported. For not even those who plotted against him, and sought out false testimony against him, were able to find even a probability for their false testimony, so as to accuse him of intemperance; but his death also came about from the plots of men, and it had nothing similar to the thunderbolt against Asclepius. And what is reverend about the raving C Dionysus, clothed in a woman's robe, in order that he should be worshipped as a god? And if those who apologize for these cases take refuge in allegories, we must examine the allegories separately, to see if they contain what is sound; and separately, whether those who have been torn apart by Titans and cast down from the heavenly throne can have any subsistence and be worthy of worship and adoration. But our Jesus, having been seen by his own companions (for I shall use the term current among Celsus), was indeed truly seen; D but it is mere calumny of Celsus that he was seen only as a shadow. Now let them be compared together
with that of Jesus. Does Celsus wish it to be the case that those accounts are true, while these, recorded by men who were eyewitnesses and who demonstrated by their very deeds the clarity of their perception regarding the One they had beheld, and who manifested their disposition in the willing endurance of suffering for the sake of His teaching, are mere fabrications? And who, desiring to act properly in all things, would randomly B give assent to those former accounts, yet, when moving on to the accounts regarding Him, would unbelievingly refuse to examine the testimony concerning Him?
And again, when it is said regarding Asclepius that a great multitude of people, both Greeks and barbarians, confess that they have often seen, and still see, not a phantom, but the very one who heals, confers benefits, and foretells future events, Celsus demands that we believe it; nor does he censure those who believe in Jesus when we believe in these things. But when we assent to the disciples who saw the miracles of Jesus and demonstrated clearly the sincerity of their own conscience—insofar as it is possible to perceive a character from writings—we are termed simpletons by Celsus, who is unable to show us an "innumerable" (as he puts it) multitude of Greeks and barbarians who confess Asclepius. We, on the contrary, if he considers this to be something great, clearly demonstrate an innumerable multitude of Greeks and barbarians who confess Jesus; and some among those whom they heal show that through this faith they have received something marvelous, for they invoke nothing else over those in need of healing than the Suppreme God, and the name of Jesus, together with the history concerning Him. By these means, we too have seen many delivered from grievous afflictions, from states of mental alienation, from madness, and from countless other ills, which neither men nor demons were able to heal.
C 25. But even if one were to grant that a certain demon named Asclepius heals bodies, I would say to those who admire this—or the divination of Apollo—the following: If the art of healing bodies is neither a good nor an evil thing, and falls to the lot of the good just as much as the wicked, and if the power to foresee future events is likewise an indifferent thing (for he who foresees is not necessarily a good man), then prove that those who heal or foresee are not wicked; for it is certain that some are demonstrated to be good, and are little short of being thought gods. But they will not be able to D prove that those who heal or foresee are good. For many are said to be healed who were unworthy of life, and to whom a wise man would...
not have wished to grant the preservation of their life, seeing that they lived in an impure manner. D And in the oracles of the Pythian, you would find certain commands which are far from reasonable. Of these, I will present two examples for the present: first, how he ordered the boxer to be honored with divine honors—I know not what noble quality he saw in his boxing—nor did he honor Pythagoras or Socrates with the honors of a boxer. But also, while calling Archilochus a servant of the Muses, A a man who rendered his own poetry in the most base and most base subject matter, and who displayed an immodest and impure character, insofar as it was possible for a servant of the Muses—who were thought to be goddesses—he proclaimed him to be a certain pious man. Truly, I do not know if even any random person would say that a pious man is not adorned with every moderation, virtue, and decency—things which the not-noble iambics of Archilochus contain. But if nothing divine is revealed there from the medical art of Asclepius and the divination of Apollo, how could anyone reasonably—even if I were to grant that these things are so—worship them as if they were pure gods? B And especially when, through the Pythian mouth, the prophetic spirit—the so-called prophetess sitting in the chasm—a prophetic spirit enters through the female organs.
On Archilochus
Furthermore, one must not permit writing as basely as Hipponax and Archilochus. Cephisidorus, at any rate, the student of the orator Isocrates, in the third book of his work against Aristotle, says that one might find among other poets or sophists one or two things stated badly, such as that in Archilochus: *Everything of a man to strip bare.* For Diphilus the comic poet also wrote in his drama *Sappho* that Archilochus and Hipponax were lovers of Sappho. If someone should blame the subject matter of Archilochus, note that they drove the poet Archilochus out of Lacedaemon as soon as he arrived, because they recognized that he had composed that it is better to throw away one’s arms than to die. C *With my shield, some Sais prides himself, which near a bush I left behind, not wishing it, blameless and beautiful. That shield, let it go. Again, I shall acquire another no less worthy.*
As for the one whom the Pythian also pitied when dead; and this in war, where, to be sure, Enyalius is common. For he who killed Archilochus in battle was called Callondas (as it seems), and he had the epithet "Corax" [Raven]. He was first cast out by the Pythia as one who had slain a man sacred to the Muses, but then, after using certain prayers and entreaties, with some justification for himself, he was ordered to go to the dwelling of the cicada [Tettix] and appease the soul of Archilochus. D *Immortal for you, O Telesicles, shall be your son, and worthy of song among men.* And this son was Archilochus. [/cont]
We, however, feel nothing of the kind concerning Jesus and his power. For the body that was born of the Virgin was composed of human material, and was subject to human wounds and death.
26. Now let us see what Celsus says after this, citing B marvelous stories from histories which, even if they seem incredible in themselves, are believed by him no less, if his words are to be trusted. Such are the things he first relates about Aristeas of Proconnesus, of whom he speaks as follows: “Then, concerning Aristeas of Proconnesus, who, after having thus divinely vanished from the sight of men, appeared again, and many years later visited many places of the world and reported marvelous things, and about whom Apollo commanded the Metapontines to hold him in the number of the gods, no one until now considers him a god.” He seems to have drawn this history from Pindar and Herodotus. C It suffices now to cite the words of Herodotus from the fourth book of his Histories, which are as follows concerning him: “I have already said whence he was who reported these things. But I shall relate the account I heard of him in Proconnesus and Cyzicus. They say that Aristeas, being no less noble than any of his fellow citizens, entered a fuller’s shop in Proconnesus and died there; the fuller, having closed the workshop, went away to notify the relatives of the deceased. But when the rumor had spread throughout the city that Aristeas was dead, as the matter was being discussed in various ways, a certain Cyzicene arrived from the city of Artace, who said that he met Aristeas on his way to Cyzicus and held a conversation with him. While he persistently maintained this, the relatives of the D deceased arrived at the fuller’s shop with the things necessary for the funeral; but when the room was opened, Aristeas appeared neither alive nor dead; seven years later, he was seen in Proconnesus, composed there the verses which are now called by the Greeks the Arimaspeia, and after that vanished for a second time. These things, then, those cities say. But I know that these things happened to the Metapontines in Italy three hundred and forty years after Aristeas of Proconnesus had vanished for the second time, as I found by comparing what I heard in Proconnesus and among the Metapontines. For the Metapontines say that Aristeas, having appeared to them in their land, commanded them to set up an altar to Apollo and besides it to erect a statue, which [is named after] Aristeas of Proconnesus.
A For he said that Apollo had come to the lands of the Italians, and he himself, who is now Aristeas, had followed him; when he followed the god, he was a raven. And the man who said these things disappeared; but the Metapontines say they sent to Delphi to ask the god what the apparition of the man might be; and the Pythian commanded them to obey the apparition, and it would be better for them if they obeyed. And they accepted this and performed it. And now there stands a statue bearing the name of Aristeas by the very image of Apollo. And laurels stand around it. And the statue is set up in the market-place. So much, then, for Aristeas.
B We must say to the history concerning Aristeas that if Celsus had set it forth as history without showing his own assent and accepting it as true, we would have met his argument in a different way. But since he says that he miraculously disappeared and became clearly visible again, and visited many parts of the world and reported wonderful things, and, moreover, mentions an oracle of Apollo commanding the Metapontines to hold Aristeas in the number of the gods, and since he recounts these things about Aristeas as if of his own accord and in agreement, I ask: You, who think that the things the disciples have written in their books about the miracles of Jesus are entirely fictions, and who reproach those who place faith in them, how do you not judge such things to be prodigiously crafted fables? C How can you, who blame others for admitting the miracles of Jesus without any reason, appear to admit such things, with no proof or argument cited to show that those events occurred? Or do you think that Herodotus and Pindar do not deceive you with lies, while those who chose to die for the teachings of Jesus, and left behind writings for posterity concerning the things they had closely observed, struggled so much for the sake of what you call fictions and myths and prodigies that they were willing to live miserably and to be forcibly removed from the midst of life? Place yourself, therefore, as a judge between D the things written about Aristeas and those narrated about Jesus, and see if, from the outcome and from what each did to induce moral reformation and piety toward the God over all, one ought not to judge that it must be believed that the things the history of Jesus reports were done not without God, whereas those of Aristeas the Proconnesian were not.
28. For with what purpose did Providence bring about the strange events concerning Aristeas? And wanting to benefit the human race, what such great things—as you think—was it demonstrating? You have nothing to say.
A We, however, when we recount the events concerning Jesus, provide not just any defense for the fact that these things came to pass, namely that God has wished to establish the doctrine given through Jesus as saving for men, confirmed indeed by the apostles as if foundations of the building of Christianity being laid, and increasing also in the following times; in which not a few healings and other prodigies not to be despised are performed in the name of Jesus. What kind of god is this Apollo, who orders the Metapontines to place Aristeas in the number of the gods? With what intent does he do this? And what utility does he arrange for the Metapontines to have from the honor paid to him as a god, if they are to consider him a god who but a moment ago was a man? But while the testimonies regarding Aristeas—given by Apollo, that daemon of ours who has received as his reward the savor of sacrifices and libations—appear to you to be worthy and such as to merit consideration, the testimonies of the Most High God and His holy angels, declared by the prophets not after Jesus had come to be, but before he had descended into the life of mankind, are unable to move you to admire the prophets who were filled with the divine Spirit, and Him who was announced by them? Yet the truth is that His advent was announced by so many men so many years before, that the whole Jewish nation, which hung upon the expectation of Him whom it hoped would come, was divided into two opinions, once Jesus was born. B For very many confessed that He was the Christ, and believed Him to be the one whom the prophets had predicted; but others, incredulous, scorning the gentleness of those who, because of the doctrine of Jesus, would not wish to stir up even the slightest sedition, dared those crimes against Jesus which His disciples, with great love of truth and candor of soul, recorded, without even concealing from His stupendous history those facts which might seem to bring shame upon the doctrine of Christians in the eyes of the multitude. For Jesus Himself and His disciples wished that those who drew near should not have faith in His divinity and miracles as if He had not associated human nature with Himself, and had not assumed the flesh which in men lusts against the spirit. For they knew that it would contribute to the salvation of the faithful if they also believed that the Power—just as it did more divine things—had lowered Itself to human nature and human miseries, and had assumed a human soul and body. For from this they learn that from Him began the conjunction of the divine nature with the human; so that the human, through its society with the more divine thing, might become divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who with faith embrace the life which Jesus taught, and which leads to the friendship of God and to communion with Him, whoever shall have ordered their own ways according to the precepts of Jesus. C D
A Now, as for the Apollo whom Celsus mentions, he wishes the Metapontines to hold Aristeas in the rank of gods. But because the Metapontines thought the evidence regarding Aristeas—that he was a man, and perhaps not a good one—to be more certain than the oracle which proclaimed him to be a god or worthy of divine honors, for this reason they were unwilling to obey Apollo, and thus no one considered Aristeas to be a god. But concerning Jesus we say, since it was profitable for the human race to receive Him as the Son of God, as God having come in a human soul and body, and this did not seem profitable to the voracity of the gluttonous demons and those who consider them to be gods; for this reason the demons on earth, who are considered to be gods by those not instructed about demons, and also those who serve them, wished to hinder the spread of the teaching of Jesus. For they saw the libations and odors, on which they fed greedily, being taken away as the teachings of Jesus prevailed. B But God, who sent Jesus, having dissolved all the plot of the demons, caused the Gospel of Jesus to prevail everywhere on earth for the conversion and correction of men, and caused there to be everywhere Churches, which are constituted with laws entirely different from the assemblies of the superstitious, the intemperate, and the unjust. For such are, for the most part, the masses of people who act in the cities. But the Churches of God, instructed by Christ, if they are compared with the assemblies of the peoples among whom they dwell, are as lights in the world. For who would not admit that even the inferior ones in the Church, and those who are worse by comparison with the better ones, are found to be superior to many of those who live in the popular assemblies? C For the Church of God, to speak of the one at Athens, is gentle and stable, as one that desires to be pleasing to God who is over all; but the assembly of the Athenians is turbulent and in no way to be compared to the Church of God that is there. You would say the same regarding the Church of God that is in Corinth and the assembly of the people of the Corinthians; and, to speak of the Church of God that is in Alexandria, and the assembly of the people of the Alexandrians. And if anyone hears these things with a candid mind and seeks the truth in considering the matters, he will admire His plan, and the fact that He was able to establish Churches of God everywhere, dwelling alongside the assemblies of the people in each city. Thus, even if one compares the council—that is, the senate—of the Church of God with the council of each individual city, D you would find some who are senators of the Church, worthy to govern the city of God, if any human being deserves that title.
A And those who are councilors everywhere bear in their own characters nothing worthy of the superiority of the rank which they seem to hold above their fellow citizens. But if you also compare the ruler of the Church of each city with the ruler of those in the city, you will be able to understand that even among those councilors and rulers of the Church of God who are very mediocre, and more sluggish 42 than those who live more energetically, there is no less superiority to be found, in general, in their progress toward virtues, compared to the character of the councilors 43 and rulers in the cities.
51. If this is the case, is it not reasonable to suppose concerning Jesus, who was able to establish so many things, that it was no ordinary divinity that was in him? B Indeed, it is not in Aristeas of Proconnesus, even though Apollo ordered him to be reckoned among the gods, nor in those whom Celsus enumerates when he says: "That no one judges Abaris the Hyperborean to be a god, who however had such power that he could keep pace with an arrow 44?" For what was the plan of the divinity when it granted to Abaris the Hyperborean to keep pace with an arrow; what utility was to return to the human race from such a great gift bestowed upon him? What did the velocity equal to a missile profit him? Even if I grant that these are not fabrications but proceeded from some divinity. But if Jesus is said to have been taken up in glory 63, I see the cause of this event. C For thus God, by whose agency it happened, designated the teacher to the onlookers, so that those struggling for the sake not of human disciplines, but of divine doctrine, might devote themselves to the most high God with all their strength and accommodate themselves in all things to His will; intending to reward or punish them according to their merits before the tribunal of God, as they have done good or evil in this life.
32. After this he speaks of the history of the Clazomenian, and proceeds thus: "Do they not say that his soul frequently, having left the body, wandered about incorporeal; and yet men did not hold him in the number of the gods?" I answer that perhaps some evil demons took care for these things to be recorded (for I do not believe they took care for them to happen), so that the things which were predicted about Jesus, and the things spoken by him, might either be exploded as fabrications similar to those, or, as having nothing greater, might not be very much admired. D But my Jesus speaks about his own soul (not separated from the body by human fate, but given to him even in this matter as a wonderful power): "No one," he says, "takes my soul"
A from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." For because he had the power to lay it down, he did lay it down when he said, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" And crying with a loud voice, he yielded up his spirit, anticipating the executioners of the crucified, who were breaking the legs of those crucified—and they were breaking them for this reason, that they might not suffer punishment any longer. But he took his soul when he showed himself to the disciples, having previously declared to those of the Jews who were unwilling to believe him: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And he said this about the temple of his body; and the prophets B proclaimed such a thing in many places, and through this: "Moreover, my flesh will rest in hope; because you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you give your holy one to see corruption."
Celsus showed that he had read more Greek histories, having also cited those things concerning Cleomedes the Astypalaean, whom he related to have climbed into a chest and, once he was enclosed inside it, not to have been found within; but they perceived that he had flown out by some divine fate when certain persons broke open the chest for the sake of seizing him. C But even if this is a fiction, as it seems to be a fiction, it is not to be compared with the things concerning Jesus. For in the life of these men, no sign of the rumored divinity is found. But there are signs that Jesus is God: the assemblies of people whom he helped, the prophecies uttered concerning him, the healings performed in his name, the knowledge of his wisdom, the understanding of the mysteries which they find who are not content with simple faith but endeavor to search the sense of the Scriptures in accordance with the suggestions of Jesus, who said: "Search the Scriptures"; and in accordance with the will of Paul D who taught that we ought to know how to answer each one as is fitting; but also of him who said: "Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." And if he wishes it to be granted to him that it is not a fiction, let him say what intention the power that is above man had in doing this—that he should fly out of the chest by some divine fate? For if he can produce some worthy reason and an intention of God that is worthy, as having bestowed such a thing upon Cleomedes, we shall judge what must be said to him. But if he is at a loss to say even anything plausible on the subject, it is clear that, as far as finding a reason is concerned, we shall either disparage it to those who have not accepted it and we shall accuse the history as not being true, or we shall say that some demon imitated magic arts and deceived [e] the eyes.
A regarding the Astypalaean—although Celsus seems to himself to have pronounced as if from a tripod, that he had flown out from the ark by some divine fate.
34. I do indeed believe that Celsus knew only those he mentioned, and that he did not say, "One could name many others of this sort," except that he wished to seem to have left behind similar examples. But let it be so; let it be granted that there were many more of this kind who brought no benefit to the human race; what have any of these in common with the work of Jesus and the marvelous events concerning Him, about which we have spoken at length? Then, because we worship one who was apprehended and died, he says: B "We do something similar to the Getae who worship Zamolxis, the Cilicians who worship Mopsus, the Acarnanians who worship Amphilochus, the Thebans who worship Amphiaraus, and the Lebadians who worship Trophonius." I will demonstrate that we are absurdly assimilated by Celsus to these as well. For they indeed erect temples and statues to those he has enumerated; but we, having removed the honor done through such things from the divine (as being things more appropriate to demons, who I know not how are established in some place, which they either seize beforehand, or dwell in as if brought there by certain rites and magic arts), we stand in awe of Jesus, who transferred our mind from every object which falls under the senses, as being not only subject to corruption, but also destined to be corrupted, and who leads us up to the worship that is to be rendered to God over all, with prayers which we offer to Him through C Him who stands as a mediator between the nature of the unbegotten and the nature of all begotten things, and who, after the manner of a high priest, brings unto us the benefits of the Father, and presents our prayers to the God over all.
35. But against him, who I know not for what reason says such things, I would willingly indulge in such trifles: Are those whom you have enumerated nothing, then? Does Trophonius in Lebadia, or Amphiaraus in his temple at Thebes, or Amphilochus in Acarnania, or Mopsus in Cilicia, do nothing remarkable? Or is there in these some demon, or hero, or god, who accomplishes something that surpasses human strength? For if he says that there is nothing there, neither demon nor any deity, let him at last reveal what his own opinion is, acknowledging that he is an Epicurean, and not holding the same views as the Greeks, neither acknowledging demons nor worshiping the same gods as they do; and let him be refuted, that he has brought forward in vain the things mentioned above, as if he had accepted them as true, along with what follows hereafter. But if he shall say that those whom he has brought into the middle are either demons, or heroes, or gods, D let him see that, which he does not wish, he will succeed in proving that Jesus was something of that sort; and consequently, that he was able to persuade many men that he was divine.
had come from God to the human race. And once this is admitted, observe whether he will not be compelled to say that Jesus was more powerful than those with whom he has classified him; for none of them forbids others from being honored, whereas this one, confident in himself, as being more powerful than all of them, forbids them from being accepted as gods, on the ground that they are evil demons who have taken possession of places on earth, since they are unable to reach a purer and more divine region, where the heavy thickness of the ten thousand evils coming from the earth and from those upon it [is not able] to attain.
B 36. Since after this he [Celsus] brings up the stories about the boy-favorites of Hadrian (I mean the stories about the youth Antinous, and the honors paid to him by the people in the Egyptian city of Antinoöpolis), and thinks that they do not fall short at all of our honor for Jesus, let us take this, too, and refute it as something said out of enmity. For what common element does the life of the one who was among Hadrian’s favorites—who did not even keep the male [person] free from the disease of womanly passion—have with our venerable Jesus, against whom not even those who have brought ten thousand accusations and told as many lies about him have been able to allege that he tasted even the slightest amount of intemperance? But if one were to examine sincerely and impartially the matters concerning Antinous, he would find that it is the Egyptian sorceries and rites that are the causes for his seeming to do something in the city of Antinoöpolis, and after his death—a thing which is also reported by the Egyptians to have happened in the case of other young men, and to those who have suffered such terrible fates, in that they set up oracular or healing demons in certain places, and often punish those who are thought to have transgressed in regard to ordinary foods or in regard to touching a human corpse, in order that they might appear to terrify the common and uneducated multitude. Such, too, is he who is considered to be a god in the city of Antinoöpolis in Egypt, whose virtues some people, living in a more reckless fashion, lie about, while others, deceived by the demon established there, and others still, convicted by a weak conscience, think they are paying a penalty willed by God from Antinous. Such are the mysteries practiced by them, and the apparent prophecies, which are very far removed from those of Jesus. D For it was not a gathering of impostors, courting favor with some king or ruler, that thought he ought to be called God; but the Creator of all things, in accordance with the power of persuasion and authority which belong to Him, declared him worthy to be wor-
honored not only by men who wish to be right-minded, but also by demons and other invisible powers. Even now, these powers, whether fearing the name of Jesus as being superior, or reverently acknowledging it as that of their own lawful Master, manifest their submission. For if He had not been established by God with such authority, the demons would not have departed from those they were afflicting merely at the pronouncement of His name. A
57. As for the Egyptians, they have been taught to venerate Antinous, and if you compare him with Apollo or Jupiter, they will tolerate it, honoring Antinous by ranking him with them. And herein also Celsus clearly lies when he says: "If you compare Apollo or Jupiter to him, they will not tolerate it." B But Christians, who have learned that their eternal life consists in knowing the only true God over all, and Him whom He sent, Jesus Christ; and who have also learned that all the gods of the gentiles are ravenous demons, fluttering about sacrifices, blood, and the emanations of sacrifices, in order to deceive those who have not fled for refuge to the God over all; and who know that the divine and holy angels of God are of a different nature and will than all the demons upon the earth, and that these [angels] are known to very few who have inquired into these matters prudently and diligently—Christians, I say, will not endure to have Apollo or Jupiter, or any of those who are appeased by fat, blood, and victims, compared with Him. Some of these believers, indeed, are unable to provide a reason for this on account of their great simplicity, being content to observe carefully what they have received; but others will provide reasons that are solid, profound, and, as a Greek would say, C internal and drawn from the very vitals of the subject. For they will say many things about God and those upon whom God has bestowed such honor that He made them partakers of divinity, and consequently of the name, through the only-begotten God, the Word. Much can also be said about the divine angels, and much about those who are hostile to the truth and who, having first been deceived themselves, wish out of error to be considered as gods, or as angels of God, or as good demons, or as heroes into which a good human soul had been converted. Furthermore, those Christians will prove that just as in philosophy many seem to hold the truth, yet have either deceived themselves with plausible arguments or have D rashly given their assent to those brought forward and discovered by others; so likewise among the souls that have departed from their bodies, and among the angels and demons, there are some who, having been drawn by the plausibility of their arguments, have induced themselves to be proclaimed gods. And
for such reasons A as these, when it is impossible for things to be found perfectly and accurately among men, it was considered safe for a man to entrust himself to no one as God, except only to Jesus Christ, who, as the arbiter over all, both perceived these deepest things and delivered them to a few.
Regarding Antinous, or anyone else of such a sort, whether among the Egyptians or among the Greeks, the faith—if I may call it so—is unfortunate; but regarding Jesus, it is either fortunate or, rather, has been carefully examined. Indeed, it appears fortunate to the multitude of men, but it has been carefully examined by very few. Even if I say B that there is a certain kind of faith, as most people would call it, that is "fortunate," I still refer the account of this to God, who knows the causes of the things apportioned to each individual in his life among men. Even the Greeks themselves would admit that, even among those considered most wise, good fortune is in many respects the cause, as for instance in the teachers one happens upon—and that in the presence of those who teach contrary doctrines—and in the education one receives among better men. For many have had their upbringing in such circumstances C that they could not even imagine better things, but from their earliest youth they were always the favorites either of licentious men or masters, or were in some other state of wretchedness that did not allow the soul to look up. It is entirely likely that the causes of these things lie in the doctrines of Providence, but for men to understand them is not easy. It seemed good to me to say these things by way of a digression, because of the saying: "So great a power has faith, which takes hold of whatever it first encounters." For it was necessary to explain through the differences in upbringing the differences in the faiths among men, that they believe more fortunately or more unfortunately; and from this to gather that what is called good fortune and what is called bad fortune contribute to the fact that even those who are sharper, to all appearance, and seemingly more rational, appear to assent more rationally to the majority of doctrines. But enough of these matters.
D The subsequent parts of Celsus must be understood, in which he says to us that a faith that has preoccupied our soul is the cause of our giving such assent to Jesus. Truly, indeed, faith does produce such an assent in us. But reflect if this very faith itself does not present something worthy of praise, in that we believe ourselves to the God over all, giving thanks to Him who leads us to such a faith, and saying that it was not without God that he dared and accomplished such a thing; and we believe also in the purpose of those who wrote the Gospels, conjecturing their piety and the candor of their spirits and their
A honesty, as it is manifest in their writings, free from anything spurious or deceitful or fictitious or crafty. For it occurs to us that souls which had not mastered those things taught by the crafty sophistry among the Greeks—which possesses much plausibility and sharpness, and rhetoric rolled about in the law courts—would not have been capable of forging such things, able as they are in themselves to contain that which leads to faith and to a life proportionate to faith. I think, indeed, that it was for this reason that Jesus also wished to employ such men as teachers of his doctrine, so that on the one hand there might be no room for suspicion that it relied on arguments composed to have a semblance of truth, and on the other hand it might become evident to those capable of understanding that this sincerity of the writers, combined with much—if I may use the expression—simplicity, was endowed with divine power, which accomplishes much more than what seems to be accomplishable by the surrounding of words, the composition of diction, and all that Greek apparatus of divisions and ornaments of speech.
40. See also whether the message of our faith, by being adjusted to the common notions implanted in us from the beginning, does not convert those who incline a teachable ear to what is said. For even though perversity, bolstered by doctrine, has been able to persuade many that there are gods, and that those things which are made from gold, and silver, and ivory, and stone, are worthy of worship and adoration, nevertheless the common sense C demands we realize that God is in no way corruptible matter, nor is he honored in inanimate materials fashioned by men as if they were made according to his image or certain symbols of him. Wherefore, it is immediately said concerning images that they are not gods, and concerning such creations that they cannot be compared with the Creator; also a few things are said concerning the God over all who created, sustains, and governs all things. And immediately, as if having recognized that which is akin to it, the rational soul D casts off those whom it had hitherto supposed to be gods, and conceives a natural love for the Creator, and through this love for him also attaches itself to him who first taught all these things to the nations, and for this purpose used disciples whom he sent forth, equipped with divine power and authority, to proclaim the word concerning God and his kingdom.
41. Furthermore, it is objected to us—I do not know how many times already—respecting Jesus, "that we consider a man from a mortal body to be God, and believe that we see godly things in this." Regarding this matter, since it has already been refuted in several places above, it is superfluous to say more. Nevertheless, let these accusers know that the one whom we consider and are persuaded from the beginning to be God and Son of God, this is the Word himself, and Wisdom himself, and Truth himself.
A And we say that his mortal body, and the human soul within it, by their communion—or rather, union and intermixture—with him, have obtained the greatest honors, and having shared in his divinity, have been changed into God. If anyone finds offense in our saying this regarding his body, let him attend to what is said by the Greeks concerning the matter that is in its own nature devoid of quality, yet is clothed in whatever qualities the Creator wishes to bestow upon it, often casting off former qualities and taking on better and different ones. If such things are considered sound, what is wonderful about the fact that the quality of the mortal body of Jesus, the providence of God so willing, was changed into an ethereal and divine quality?
B Celsus does not speak like a dialectician, comparing the human flesh of Jesus to gold, silver, and stone, on the grounds that it is more corruptible than they are. For to speak accurately, no incorruptible thing is more incorruptible than an incorruptible thing, nor is one corruptible thing more corruptible than another. But if it were perhaps more corruptible, even so, we shall say against this that if it is possible for the underlying matter, which is subject to all qualities, to change its qualities, why is it not possible that the flesh of Jesus, having changed its qualities, became such as it was fitting for one to be who exists in the ether and in the regions above, no longer possessing the characteristics specific to the weakness of flesh, and whatever else Celsus called "more impure"—and that too is not done philosophically. For that which is properly impure originates from vice. But the nature of the body is not impure; for in so far as it is the nature of a body, C it does not have within it the vice that is the parent of impurity.
Further, since he anticipates the defense from us and speaks regarding this transformation of his body: "But perhaps, after putting these off, he will be God; why then not rather Asclepius and Dionysus and Heracles?" we shall say: What great thing did Asclepius or Dionysus or Heracles work? And whom can they point to as having had their morals improved and becoming better because of their words and lives, so that they might be called gods? For having read many histories about them, let us see if they lived pure and untouched by licentiousness, or injustice, or folly, or cowardice. And if nothing of the sort were found in them, Celsus’s argument might be strong in equating them to Jesus; D but if it is evident—even if something is reported about them as being more virtuous—that they are recorded as having done countless things against right reason, how can you still reasonably say that they, rather than Jesus, became gods after putting off their mortal body?
A Afterward, he says, "We are mocked by them for worshipping Zeus, since his tomb is shown in Crete; yet we worship, no less than they, one who was buried, not knowing how or for what reason the Cretans do such a thing." Observe, then, that in these matters he offers an apology for the Cretans, for Zeus, and for his tomb, hinting at allegorical meanings according to which the myth about Zeus is said to have been fabricated; yet he accuses us, who confess that our Jesus was placed in a tomb but also assert that he was raised from the tomb, which is something the Cretans no longer report about Zeus.
And since he seems B to support the tomb of Zeus in Crete, saying, "As to how and why the Cretans do this, we do not know," I would say that not even Callimachus of Cyrene, who had read almost every poem and had examined almost the entire history of the Greeks, knew of any allegorical interpretation regarding the tales of Zeus and his tomb. Therefore, in the hymn he wrote to Zeus, he reproaches the Cretans, saying: "Cretans are always liars; for indeed, O Lord, the Cretans Fashioned a tomb for you; but you did not die, for you are forever." But the one who said, "You did not die, for you are forever," having denied the burial of Zeus in Crete, records the beginning of death as having happened to Zeus. And the beginning of death is birth upon the earth; he speaks as follows: "But among the Parrhasians Rhea bore you, having laid you to rest." He ought to have seen that, just as he denied the birth of Zeus in Crete on account of his tomb, it followed that if he was born in Arcadia, then he who was born must also have died. C Callimachus sings of these things in this way: "Zeus, some say that you were born on the mountains of Ida; Zeus, others say in Arcadia. Which of them, Father, lied?" "Cretans are always liars," and what follows.
Celsus drove us to this, being ill-disposed toward Jesus, in that he believes it is true that he died and was buried, yet considers it a fiction that he rose from the dead, even though so many prophets have predicted his resurrection, and it is established that he appeared alive through many signs.
44. Next, Celsus turns to those who are held to be Christians—those who are not, as he thinks, more learned, but most unlearned—who chatter against the teaching of Jesus, bringing forward what he says are their principles: "Let no learned man,” he says, “no wise man, no prudent man draw near to us: for these are considered evils among us. But if any is ignorant, if any is foolish, if any is unlearned, D if any is a child, let him come with confidence."
A For by the very fact that they acknowledge such persons to be worthy of their own God, they plainly show that they desire to persuade, and are only able to persuade, the foolish, the ignoble, the senseless, slaves, women, and little children. To this we reply that, just as if someone—while Jesus is teaching about temperance and saying, "Whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart"—were to see a few of the many who are considered Christians living dissolutely, he would most rightly blame them for living contrary to the teaching of Jesus; yet he would act most unreasonably were he to attach the crime of these individuals to the doctrine. Similarly, since the doctrine of the Christians invites men to wisdom, those who acquiesce in their own ignorance must indeed be rebuked, saying not, in fact, what Celsus attributes to them (for however simple and ignorant they may be, they have not progressed to such a degree of impudence as to say those things), but rather things B that, even if they are milder, nevertheless call them away from the pursuit of wisdom.
45. But that the Word wishes us to be wise must be shown both from the ancient Jewish scriptures, which we also use, and no less from those written after Jesus, which the Churches believe to be divine. It is written in the fiftieth Psalm, where David pours out prayers to God, saying: "The hidden and secret things of your wisdom you have made known to me." And if anyone were to turn over the Psalms, he would find this book full of many wise precepts. Solomon also, because he asked for wisdom, received it. And one may see the traces of his wisdom in his writings, which contain great depth in few words, in which you may find many praises of wisdom and exhortations C on the necessity of acquiring it. And Solomon was so wise that the Queen of Sheba, having heard of his fame and the fame of the Lord, came to test him with riddles. And she spoke to him all that was in her heart. And Solomon explained to her all the words she had proposed; there was no word that could escape the king and that he did not answer for her. And the Queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon and all his greatness, and she had no more spirit in her, and she said to the king: "The word is true which I heard in my own land regarding you and your wisdom; and I did not believe those who told me, until I came myself and saw with my own eyes. And behold, not even the half was told me. Your wisdom and your works are greater than the report D which I heard." Regarding the same king, these things are written: "And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart even as the sand that is on the sea shore; and the wisdom of Solomon excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt, and he was wiser than all men, and he was wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol, and he was
famous in 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 unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall; and he spake of fishes and of beasts. And there came all the people to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and of all the kings of the earth, which heard of his wisdom. A Thus, however, the Word wills that there be wise men among the faithful, in such a way that, for the sake of exercising the intelligence of the hearers, it speaks some things in enigmas, some in what are called obscure sayings, others through parables, and still others through problems. Wherefore Osee, one of the prophets, says toward the end of his discourses: "Who is wise, and shall understand these things? intelligent, and he shall know them?" And Daniel and those who had been led into slavery with him had progressed so much in the branches of learning which the wise men at the Babylonian court professed, that they were shown to be ten times superior to all the rest. Whence also, in Ezechiel, the prince of Tyre, who vaunted himself upon his wisdom, hears: "Art thou wiser than Daniel? No secret was hidden from thee."
46. Now, if you take into your hands the books written after the advent of Jesus, you will find the parables being told to the crowds of the faithful as if they were outsiders, and as if they were worthy only of external discourses; but to the disciples [the parables] are explained privately. For Jesus used to explain everything privately to his own disciples, C preferring those who were possessed by a desire for his wisdom to the crowds. He even promises those who would believe in him that he will send wise men and scribes, saying: "Behold, I send unto you wise men and scribes, and some of them they shall kill and crucify." And Paul, in enumerating the graces which have God as their author, in the first place sets "the word of wisdom," and second, as being inferior to it, he places "the word of knowledge"; below these, in the third place, he places "faith"; and because he valued "the word" more than the operation of prodigies, for this reason he enumerates "operations of powers" and "gifts of healings" last, and deems them inferior to the spiritual gifts. Likewise, Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles, D testifying to the manifold erudition of Moses—which he had drawn from ancient books not generally known—says: "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." On which account the suspicion arose that his miracles were performed by the magic arts of the Egyptians, but the Philocalia correctly omits this.
A For this reason it was even suspected during his miracles, that he did not perform them in accordance with the divine promise, but by the learning of the Egyptians, given that he was wise in those arts. Since the king entertained such thoughts about him, he summoned the sorcerers of the Egyptians, and the sophists and the magicians, who were proven to be nothing in comparison with the wisdom in Moses, which was superior to all the wisdom of the Egyptians.
It is likely that the things written in the first epistle to the Corinthians by Paul, regarding the Greeks and those who B prided themselves greatly on Greek wisdom, moved some to believe that the wise are excluded from our religion. Whoever has taken this into his mind should learn how the Apostle, in reproving wicked men there, states that they are not wise in the things that belong to the understanding—things which do not fall under the senses and are eternal—but because they are occupied only with sensible things and place all things in them, they are "wise" only in this world. Likewise, among the many doctrines, those which advocate for matter and bodies, and argue that all things which first exist are bodies, and that there is nothing else besides these—whether what is called invisible or what is called incorporeal—he claims to be the wisdom of the world which is coming to nothing, and is foolishness, and the wisdom of this age. But those [doctrines] which translate the soul from the things here to the blessedness with God and to what is called His kingdom, and which teach one to despise all things sensible and visible as passing and perishable, and to hasten toward the invisible, and to contemplate the things which are not seen—these things he says are the wisdom of God.
Paul, being a lover of truth, says concerning some of the wise among the Greeks, where they speak the truth: "When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, nor were they thankful." And he bears witness that they did know God, and he says that this did not happen to them without God, in those things where he writes: "For God has manifested it unto them" C—alluding, I think, to those who ascend from objects of sight to objects of thought, when he writes: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse; because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were they thankful."
Perhaps some have also been moved by the passage, "For you see your calling, brothers, that not many are wise after the flesh, not many are mighty, not many are noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the ignoble and despised things, and things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence," to think that no learned or D wise or prudent man is received into our society. This other passage of Paul gives place to that: "But see your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many are mighty, not many are noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world, that He might confound the wise; and the ignoble things of the world and [the weak things of the world has God chosen, to confound the strong; the ignoble]
contemptibilia elegi, God, and those things which are not, to destroy those things which are, that no flesh should boast in His sight. But it is not said, "no man wise according to the flesh," but, "Not many wise according to the flesh." A Certainly, Paul, describing with what gifts he who is called a bishop must be adorned, commands him to be a teacher; for he says it is necessary that he be potential to refute those who contradict, and to stop the mouths of the vain talkers and deceivers by the wisdom that is in him. And just as he prefers a "husband of one wife" B over one who has contracted second marriages, and "blameless" over one who can be blamed, and "sober" over one not so, and "prudent" over one not prudent, and "orderly" over one who is even slightly disorderly; so he wishes the one about to be appointed primarily to the episcopate to be apt to teach, and able to refute those who contradict. How then does Celsus unjustly complain against us, as if we were saying, "Let no one who is educated, let no one who is wise, let no one who is prudent approach us"? Nay, let the educated, the wise, and the prudent approach, if he wishes. But none the less let also the dull, the uneducated, and the child approach. For our doctrine promises to heal even such people as these if they approach, creating them all worthy of God.
49. False also is this, that only "fools, and the ignoble, and the senseless, and slaves, and women, and little children" the heralds of divine doctrine wish to acquire for themselves. For our doctrine calls these, that it may make them better, C but it calls also those who differ far from them; since it is the "Savior of all men."
49. It is false that only "the foolish, and the ignoble, and the senseless, and slaves, and women, and little children" the heralds of the divine word wish to persuade. For the word calls these, that it may make them better, but it calls also those who differ far from them; since He is the "Savior of all men." D The canon of ministry has utterly excluded digamists; to "stop the mouths of those who contradict," the uneducated.
A ...Christ, "and especially of the faithful," whether intelligent or simpler ones; "and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sake of the whole world." It would therefore be pointless after these things for us to offer an apology against the words of Celsus, which are as follows: "For what evil is it to be educated, and to have taken pains with the best arguments, and to be—and to be thought—prudent? And what hinders this for the knowledge of God? And why is it not rather an advantage, and something through which one might more easily arrive at truth?" To be truly educated is not an evil; for education is a path to virtue; yet, on the other hand, even the wise men of the Greeks would not count among the educated those who hold erroneous doctrines. Again, who would not agree that it is a good thing to have taken pains with the best arguments? But whom shall we call the best arguments, if not those which are true and which exhort to virtue? Furthermore, it is a good thing to be prudent; but it is no longer so to *seem* so, which is what Celsus said. And education does not hinder B towards the knowledge of God; rather, it cooperates with it, as does the taking of pains with the best arguments and being prudent. And it is more fitting for us to say this than for Celsus, especially if he is convicted of being an Epicurean.
Let us see also his next remarks, which are as follows: "But we see, of course, both those who in the marketplaces most shamelessly make displays and gather crowds, who would never venture to approach an assembly of wise men, nor in their presence venture to display their own wares; but wherever they see striplings, and a mob of household slaves, and a gathering of foolish people, there they push themselves in and show off." See how in these points he slanders us, C likening us to those in the marketplaces who make such shameless displays and gather crowds. What, pray, are the shameless displays we make? Or what do we do that is similar to these men, we who through readings and the expositions of these readings exhort men to piety towards the God of all and the virtues that share the throne with it, while we turn them away from contempt for the Divine and from all things done against right reason? Would even the philosophers themselves not pray to gather as many hearers as possible to arguments that exhort to the good? Which is what some of the Cynics especially have done, D discoursing publicly to those they happened to meet. Will he therefore say that even these men, although they do not gather together those who are thought to be educated, but call and assemble hearers from the crossroads, are similar to those in the marketplaces who make such shameless displays and gather crowds?
A If those men are not blameworthy in doing this, let us see if the Christians do not even better, and incite the multitudes to virtue. For the philosophers who hold forth in public do not distinguish their hearers; rather, whoever wishes stands and listens. But the Christians B examine, as far as they are able, the souls of those who wish to hear them, and test them privately. And when those auditors appear to have made sufficient progress in the desire to live well before being admitted into the common assembly, they then admit them, having established distinct orders: one of those who have recently begun and have been newly admitted, and have not yet received the symbol of having been purified; and another of those who have, so far as they are able, demonstrated a resolve to desire nothing else but what is pleasing to Christians. Among these, certain persons are appointed to investigate the lives and habits of those coming forward, so that they may forbid those who do shameful things from coming to their common assembly, while those who are not such, they receive with their whole soul and make them better day by day. C And such is their practice concerning those who sin, and especially those who are overcome by licentiousness, whom those men who resemble the followers of Celsus—those in the marketplaces who make such shameless displays—cast out of the common life. And just as the venerable school of the Pythagoreans used to build cenotaphs for those who deserted their philosophy, considering them to have become dead; so too do the Christians mourn as lost and dead to God those who have been overcome by lust or any other crime. Yet, if they show a worthy change, they consider them as if raised from the dead, though they are admitted back only after a longer time than those who were first received; for they do not enroll those who have stumbled after having come to the Word into any office or position of authority in the so-called Church of God, even after they have returned. D
A 52. Now see whether there is not an evident falsehood in the comparison of things most unlike in these words of Celsus: "We see, to be sure, those who in the marketplace display their wicked and charlatan arts." Regarding those "who in the markets display wicked and charlatan absurdities," with whom Celsus compares us, he says that they "never venture to approach an assembly of prudent men, nor do they dare to sell their wares there; but wherever they notice a collection of adolescents, slaves, and fools, they thrust themselves into the midst and hunt for their applause." In this, Celsus does nothing but slander us, like women who pursue one another with mutual abuse at street corners. For we, as far as we are able, do everything so that our assembly may consist of prudent men; and those things among us which are most beautiful and divine, we venture to bring forth into the midst in public congregations only when there is a supply of intelligent hearers present; but the more profound matters we pass over in silence, whenever we see that those who are hearing are simpler and in need of instruction, which in a metaphorical sense is called milk.
53. And indeed Paul, our writer, in his letter to the B Corinthians—Greeks, to be sure, but not yet with purified morals—says: "I fed you with milk, and not with meat; for you were not yet able to receive it, nor even now are you able; for you are still carnal. For while there is among you jealousy and strife, are you not carnal and walking according to the flesh?" And he himself, not ignorant that there is a certain more perfect food for the soul, and that the food of the newly initiated is to be compared to the milk of infants, says: "And you have become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is inexperienced in the word of righteousness; for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, for those who by practice have C senses trained to discern both good and evil." Can those, therefore, who believe these things to be well said, suspect that we—
D Epictetus, dealing with Fortunatianus, bishop of Assura, whom he says "after a grave fall of his own ruin, now wishes to act as if faultless, and has begun to lay claim to the episcopate for himself;" and a little later: "He still dares to lay claim to the priesthood, which he has betrayed; as if it were lawful to approach the altar of God after the altars of the devil." And he attempted this, spurning the interdict of Pope Cornelius, by which it was forbidden for lapsed bishops to enjoy the episcopate any longer. Whence we perceive and believe that this censure came from the examination of God, so that he might not continue to stand at the altar and handle—the shame of incest, the faith of a perfidious one, the religion of a profane one, the divine things of an earthly one, the holy things of a sacrilegious one. See Epistle 67, to Stephanus concerning Martianus; and Epistle 52, to Antonianus, where, dealing incidentally with Trophimus, he has this: "A treatment having therefore been held there with very many colleagues, Trophimus was received; for whom the return of the brethren and the restored salvation of many made satisfaction: yet Trophimus was admitted in such a way that he communicates as a layman, not, as the letters of malicious men have reported to you, as if he usurped the place of a priest." The same man, in Epistle 68, wrote back to the clergy and people of the Spains concerning the bishops Basilides and Martialis: of whom the latter confessed that he had frequented the base banquets of the gentiles, and had denied Christ before a ducenarian procurator; the former acknowledged himself to be a blasphemer against God and defiled by a certificate of idolatry: praying to God, and giving thanks enough if it should happen that he could communicate even as a layman.— "Vainly," says Cyprian, "do such men attempt to usurp the episcopate for themselves: since it is manifest that such men can neither preside over the Church of Christ, nor ought to offer sacrifices to God; especially since long ago with us, and with all bishops altogether constituted in the whole world, even our colleague Cornelius, a peaceful and just priest, and one honored by the Lord's favor even with martyrdom, has decreed that such men may indeed be admitted to perform penance; but are to be prohibited from the ordination of the clergy and from priestly honor." SPENCER.
A ...into an assembly of prudent men; but where they see striplings, and a crowd of servants, and a gathering of foolish people, there they bring forward divine and solemn matters, and take pride in themselves before such persons? But it is clear to one who examines the whole intent of our writings, that Celsus, being ill-disposed, just like the common crowds, falsely and inconsiderately B speaks such things against the race of Christians. We confess that we desire to instruct all in the word of God, even if Celsus does not wish it, so as to impart to striplings the exhortation that is fitting for them, and to show and train those who are household slaves, how, by assuming a free spirit, they might be ennobled by the Word. Those of us who advocate Christianity sufficiently declare that we are debtors to Greeks and C barbarians, to the wise and the foolish (for they do not deny that even the foolish need to have their souls healed), so that, as far as possible, laying aside their ignorance, they may hasten toward a more intelligent state, hearing also Solomon saying: "O ye simple, understand wisdom; and ye that are fools, be ye of an understanding heart," and, "Whosoever is among you the most foolish, let him turn to me." Wisdom also exhorts those lacking in mind D saying: "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you; leave foolishness, that ye may live, and rectify your understanding in knowledge." I would also ask these things in relation to what has been said, in response to the discourse of Celsus: Are those who philosophize not calling striplings to hear them? And do they not call young men from a life of ruin to better things? Why, then, do they not wish for household slaves to philosophize? Or are we also to count it a crime for philosophers to incite household slaves to virtue—Pythagoras, for instance, in the case of Zamolxis, Zeno in the case of Persaeus, and, recently and lately, those who urged Epictetus to philosophize? Or is it permitted to you, O Greeks, to call striplings and household slaves and foolish men to philosophy, but when we do exactly this, we are not doing it in a spirit of humanity, desiring to heal every rational nature with the medicine of the Word, and to bring them into fellowship with God, the Creator of all things? These things, then, are sufficient to serve more as a refutation of the insults of Celsus than as a response to his accusations.
A 55. But since he was so delighted by this sort of calumny, he added still more. Come then, having set these forth as well, let us see who brings more shame upon the society of the Christians, or Celsus. He says: «We see even in private homes, wool-workers, cobblers, and fuller—the most unlearned and rustic sort—who would not dare say a word in front of their elders or their wiser masters; but whenever they get hold of the children in private, and with them some women who are as foolish as they are, they speak of certain wondrous things: that one ought not to pay attention to one’s father or teachers, but must believe them; that the others are babbling and are senseless and can neither see nor do anything that is truly good, being preoccupied with empty trifles; but that they alone know how one must live, and if the children believe them, they will be happy, and will render the house prosperous.» And at the same time, if they see some teacher of instruction or someone wiser walking by, or even the father himself, those who are more cautious among them keep silent; B but the bolder ones incite the children to rebel, whispering such things as that in the presence of the father and teachers they would not wish to say anything, nor would they be able to explain any good thing to the children; for they are to shun the stupidity and perversity of these men who are completely corrupt and arrived at the extremity of wickedness, and who punish them; but if they wish to learn anything, they must leave behind the father and teachers and go with the women and the children who play with them into the women's quarters, or into the cobbler's shop, or the fuller's workshop, that they might receive the perfect teaching: and by saying these things, they persuade them.
56. Observe then also here in what way, by deriding those among us who teach the word and who try in every way to raise the soul up to the Creator of all things, and by showing that it is necessary to hold all things that are sensory, transitory, and visible in contempt, and to do everything in order to attain to communion with God, and to the contemplation of things intelligible and invisible, and to a blessed life with God and those who are God's own, C he compared them in private homes to wool-workers, and to cobblers, and to fullers, and to the most rustic of men, as people who entice small children and women to base things, so that they might abandon their father and teachers and follow them. For let Celsus produce what sober father or what teachers of more solemn instruction we draw the children and women away from; and let him compare them with the children and women who are approaching our word, whether D those whom they heard, whether ones better than our own, and in what way from certain noble and solemn teachings we—
A avert children and women toward things that are worse. But he will not be able to demonstrate any such thing against us. On the contrary, we turn women away from debauchery and from perversion caused by those who consort with them, and from all theater-madness, and from dance-madness, and from superstition; and we curb adolescent boys who are becoming wanton and itching for sexual pleasures, warning them not only of how much infamy there is in lust, but also how great a danger threatens the soul of the wicked because of such things, what penalties it will pay, and how it will be punished.
57. And who are those teachers we speak of as talking nonsense and being rejected, whom Celsus defends as though they were teaching better things? Unless perhaps he considers those to be good teachers of women and not nonsensical who urge them toward superstition and lascivious spectacles; or furthermore, that those are not deranged who lead and carry off young people toward everything that we know is frequently committed by them in a disorderly manner. We, on our part, encourage even those who study the doctrines of philosophers, as far as possible, toward the piety according to us, presenting its excellence and purity. But since Celsus, through what he said, suggested that we do not do this, but call only the thoughtless to us, we would say to him: If you were accusing us of turning away from philosophy those who are already preoccupied with it, your statement would have no truth, though it might have plausibility. But now, when you say that we turn children who are approaching the good away from teachers, produce for us other teachers besides the teachers of philosophy, or those who have done something useful. But he will be able to prove nothing of the sort. We promise with boldness, and not in secret, that those will be blessed who live according to the word of God, and who refer everything to Him, and who do everything as if God were an observer and spectator. Are these, then, the teachings of wool-workers, B of cobblers, of fullers, and of the most uneducated rustics? But this he will not be able to show.
58. And those who, according to Celsus, are similar to the wool-workers, and similar to the cobblers, fullers, rustics, and the uneducated, he claims are not willing—or even able—to explain C anything good to children while the father and teachers are present. But I ask him: What father, my good sir, and what teacher are you talking about? If you mean one who pursues virtue, who shudders at wickedness, and who embraces the better things, know that we shall speak our truth to the children in his presence fearlessly, certain, of course, that we shall be approved by such a judge. But we are silent before a father who is an enemy to virtue and honesty, and before teachers who teach things contrary to sound doctrine. Nor is this D to us...
a ground of complaint; for you do not complain with reason. Indeed, if you were to impart the mysteries of philosophy to youths and sons, whose fathers deemed philosophy a vain and useless thing, you would not say that this is done in the case of base fathers; but, wishing to separate the sons who have been won over to philosophy from their evil fathers, you would wait for opportunities that the discourses of philosophy might reach the young. A And we shall say the same things regarding teachers. For if we divert people from teachers who teach the base things of comedy and the most licentious of iambic verses, and whatever else neither improves the one who speaks nor benefits those who listen—and who do not know how to listen to poems in a philosophical manner, nor how to add to each of them what contributes to the benefit of the young—in doing this we are not ashamed to confess what we are doing. But if you were to point out to me teachers who provide a preliminary education in philosophy and exercise their students in philosophy, I would not indeed seek to divert the young from such men, B but I would try, once they had been previously grounded as in the encyclical studies and the subjects of philosophy, to raise them up to the venerable and lofty grandeur of the eloquence of the Christians, which escapes the notice of the masses, dealing as it does with the greatest and most necessary matters, and demonstrating that these have been philosophized by the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus.
After these things, Celsus, perceiving that he had reviled us more bitterly than he should have, as if in his own defense says the following: “But that I have brought no more bitter charges than what the truth compelled, let one judge by these things as well. C For those who summon others to the other mysteries make this proclamation: ‘Whoever is pure of hands and prudent in speech,’ and again others: ‘Whoever is pure from every defilement, and whose soul is conscious of no evil, and who has lived well and justly.’ These things indeed those proclaim who promise a purgation of sins. But now let us hear whom the Christians summon: ‘Whoever,’ they say, ‘is a sinner, whoever is unintelligent, whoever is a child, and, to speak simply, whoever is miserable, the kingdom of God will receive him.’ Whom do you call a sinner? Is it not the unjust man, the thief, the burglar, the poisoner, the temple-robber, and the grave-robber?” Whom else would one call him who gathers a society of brigands? D To these things we say that it is one thing to call those who are sick in soul to their healing, and another to call those who are healthy to the knowledge and understanding of divine things. And we, knowing the distinction between both of these, in the first place urge men to be willing to be healed; we urge the sinners to come to those who teach discourses on not sinning, and the unintelligent to those who produce intelligence, and the children to advance in understanding to the [manly]
A man, and those who are simply miserable to blessedness, or, more accurately, to happiness; and when those who are progressing from among the invited show that they have been purified by the Word, and, as far as possible, have lived better, then we call them to our mysteries. «For we speak wisdom among the perfect.» B And teaching that «Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins,» we say: Whoever is clean in hands, and on that account lifts up pure hands to God, and, apart from the uplifted and heavenly deeds he performs, is able to say, «Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice,» let him come to us. And we say also: Whoever is wise in voice, because he meditates on the law of the Lord day and night, and through practice has had his senses exercised to the discernment of good and evil; let him not hesitate to approach the solid and spiritual foods which are appropriate to the athletes of piety and all virtue. And since the grace of God is with all who love Him with an incorruptible love, from whom proofs concerning immortality are given, we say: Whoever is pure, not only from every crime, but even from those sins which are considered of a lighter nature, let him approach confidently to be initiated into the mysteries of the religion of Jesus, which are instituted only for the pure and holy. Celsus’s mystagogue says: «Let him whose conscience is stung by no evil come;» but he who initiates into the mysteries of God according to the discipline of Jesus says to those whose soul is already purified: «Whoever has long been conscious of no evil within himself, and especially since he has been healed by the medicine of the doctrine,» let him hear what Jesus taught privately to his genuine disciples. From which it results that Celsus, while contrasting the ministers of Greek religion with the teachers of the religion of Jesus, did not understand what the difference is between these two things: calling the bad to receive remedies, and the pure to the knowledge of more recondite matters.
61. Neither, therefore, the unjust, nor the thief, nor the housebreaker, nor the sorcerer, nor the sacrilegious, nor the spoiler of the dead, nor any others whom Celsus might C list by exaggerating, do we call to the knowledge of the mysteries, or make partakers of the wisdom which is hidden, which God predestined before the ages for the glory of His righteous ones; but we call them to healing. For in our divine doctrine, there are some remedies provided for the ill, of whom the Word says, «They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick;» and others, which show to those who are pure in body and soul D «the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest by the Scriptures of the prophets, and by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,» which coming is clearly revealed to all the perfect, and illuminates the ruling faculty towards the infallible knowledge of things. Since, however, [Celsus] in his exaggeration of our ways...
adds to the men he named the term "vile," saying: "Whom else would the robber call out?" we shall reply to this that the robber calls such persons "robbers," because his own wickedness makes use of them against the men whom he desires to kill and despoil. But the Christian, even if he calls them by the same names as the robber, calls them by a different calling; namely, so that he may bind up their wounds with the Word, and pour into the soul inflamed by the fires of the passions the remedies from the Word, analogous to wine, oil, and soothing balm, and the other healing aids of the soul.
62. Then Celsus, unjustly slandering the things that have been said and written for the purpose of exhortation towards those who have lived wicked lives, and for calling them to repentance and the amendment of their souls, says that we say that God was B "sent to sinners." He does this just as if he were to charge some people with a crime because they affirmed that a physician had been sent by a most humane king to a city on account of those who were laboring under diseases. God the Word, therefore, was sent to sinners as a physician, but as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who, having washed away their former sins, no longer fall back into them. But Celsus, ignorant of this distinction, because he did not wish to inquire, asks: "Why was he not sent to those who are free from sins? What evil is there in not having sinned?" To this we reply, that if by those who are free from sins he means those who no longer sin, our Savior Jesus was sent to them also, but not as a physician; but if by those free from sins he means those who have never C at any time sinned (for he did not distinguish this in his own wording), we shall say that it is impossible for a man to be thus sinless. This we say, with the exception of the man understood as being in accordance with Jesus, who "committed no sin." And Celsus speaks maliciously concerning us, as if we asserted that: "God will receive the unjust man, if he humbles himself because of his wickedness; but the just man, if he has looked up to Him with virtue from the beginning, him He will not receive." For we say that it is impossible for a man to look up to God with virtue from the beginning. For it is first necessary for sin to exist in men. Even as Paul says: "But when the commandment came, sin D revived, and I died." Moreover, we do not teach concerning the unjust man that it is sufficient for him to humble himself because of his wickedness in order to be received by God; but if, condemning himself for his former deeds, he walks humbly on account of those, and is adorned by the latter deeds, this man God will receive.
Then, not understanding how it has been said, "Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled," and not even being instructed by Plato that "the good and noble man walks [among] men," having forgotten what Plato teaches, "a man who is probous and honest" [as he]—
A modeste et composite incedere, and ignorant of what we say: "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time"; B he says: "And while men who rightly perform the office of judges forbid defendants to use groans and lamentations before them, so that they may not be moved in judging by mercy rather than by truth; yet God, in judging, has regard not for truth, but for flattery." But what flattery, and what kind of discourse of those lamenting, appearing in the Scriptures, is there when he who has sinned says in his prayers to God: "My sin I have made known to Thee, and my iniquity I have not concealed. I said, I will confess my iniquity against myself unto the Lord," and the rest? Can he prove that such a confession by those who, after having committed a sin, humble themselves before God, does not lead to their correction? But his desire to slander makes him speak against himself. For now he seems to recognize a man who, without sin, just and endowed with virtue, has B from the beginning lifted his eyes unto God; now he approves of what we say: "What man is perfectly just? Or who is without sin?" For he himself says: "It is true that the human race is by nature prone to sin." Then, as if all were not called to our religion, he says: "He ought to have called absolutely all, if indeed all have sinned." And yet, in the preceding pages, that statement of Jesus has been brought forward by us: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." All men, therefore, C laboring and heavy laden through the nature of sin, are called to that rest which the teaching of God promises. For God "sent His Word and healed them, and snatched them from their corruptions."
64. He proceeds: "For what reason, then, is preference given to sinners?" And he adds more of this kind. We respond that a sinner is not simply preferred to one who is not a sinner; but sometimes it happens that the sinner, touched by the consciousness of his own sin, and therefore penitent and humble on account of his sins, is preferred to one who, although he is considered less of a sinner than the other, does not deem himself a sinner at all, but D rather boasts and swells with pride on account of certain goods with which he seems to himself to be adorned. This is what the parable of the publican and the Pharisee shows to those who wish to read the Gospels with candor, of whom the former used to say: "God be merciful to me a sinner"; but the latter, swollen with a great and evil opinion of himself, used to say: "I thank Thee that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." For Jesus judges thus of the prayer of both: "This one went down to his house justified rather than that one; for everyone that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalt-
exalted.” We do not, therefore, blaspheme God, nor do we lie, when we teach that every person whomsoever should be conscious of his own human smallness, when compared to the greatness of God; and that he should always ask of Him that which is lacking to our nature A, since He alone is able to supply what we lack.
Celsus thinks that we say such things as an exhortation to sinners because we are unable to bring any man who is truly good and just to us; and that for this reason we open our doors to the most unholy and wicked individuals. But if anyone were to consider our assembly with fairness, he would see that we have more people who have turned from a life that was not very unruly than those who have turned from the most wicked sins. For those who are conscious of having lived better lives, when they pray that what is proclaimed concerning the reward to be given by God to the better sort may be true, are more prepared to give their assent to what is said than those who have lived quite wickedly; for the latter are restrained by their very conscience from admitting that they will be punished by the Judge of all with a punishment befitting one who has committed such great sins, and which is not brought against the sinner B by the Judge of all contrary to right reason. But sometimes even very wicked men, though they may have the desire to accept the doctrine concerning punishment because of the hope of obtaining repentance, are hindered by the habit of sinning; having been, as it were, deeply dyed by wickedness, they are no longer able to depart from it easily toward a settled life that is in accordance with right reason.
This is also what Celsus perceived, though I do not know how he says the following in what follows: "And of course it is manifest to everyone that no one could ever change—neither by punishment, nor even by mercy—those who have a natural inclination and a habit of sinning; for it is quite difficult to change one's nature entirely. But those who are without sin are better companions in life."
C And here, too, Celsus seems to me to be quite mistaken in not granting that those who have a natural inclination to sin and have become accustomed to doing so can undergo a complete change; for he thinks that they cannot be cured even by punishments. For it is clearly evident that, while all men are naturally inclined to sin, some are not only inclined, but also habituated to sinning. Yet not all men are incapable of a complete change; for there are, in every school of philosophy and according to the divine word, those who are reported to have changed so much that they serve as examples of the best life. And some bring forward, of the heroes, Hercules and Ulysses; of those who came later, Socrates; and of those who lived yesterday and the day before, D those who mention Musonius. Not, therefore, do we alone con-
contend that Celsus erred, when he said it is obvious that those who are by nature inclined to sin and have added habit to it cannot even be brought by any punishment to a perfect change for the better; but also all sane philosophers, who do not deny that a return to virtue is possible for men. Let us grant, indeed, that he did not express with enough accuracy what he had in mind; yet, however benevolently we may interpret him, it will still appear true that he is false in saying that those who are naturally inclined to sin and have added the habit of nature cannot, even by punishment, be changed perfectly; and that which is heard from these words, as far as we are able, we have refuted.
67. Perhaps he meant to indicate nothing else [67. B] than that those who are by nature and habit swept into certain crimes, and especially those which the most wicked perform, even by punishments cannot be perfectly corrected. But the history of certain philosophers argues that this too is false. For who among men would not rank in the number of the most wicked him who endures to obey a master who commands him to remain in a brothel, where he might endure whatever anyone pleased? Yet this is told of Phaedo. Who would not say that he had been the most wicked of men, who, with a flute-girl and the most shameful companions of his carousals, broke into the school of the most venerable [67. C] Xenocrates, in order to insult a man whom the other associates admired as most holy?
[67. D] But Seneca, and Rufus the prefect, and certain others of the noble, conspired against Nero. Then Musonius the philosopher was sent into exile for these reasons. And Vespasianus immediately expelled all the philosophers from Rome, except Musonius. Whether this is that Musonius, the learned will see, says Scaliger. They will see, if they look at Tacitus and Xiphilinus in the cited places.
A And yet the word had the power to turn even these and make them advance to such a degree in philosophy, that one was deemed by Plato worthy to recount the discourse of Socrates concerning immortality, and to describe his constancy in prison, when he did not fret about the hemlock, but fearlessly and with all the tranquility of soul discussed such great and sublime things, which even those who are most composed and unburdened by any trial can scarcely follow; and another, Polemo A, who became most temperate from being a profligate, was deemed worthy to succeed to the school of the renowned Xenocrates in point of dignity. Celsus, therefore, does not speak the truth when he says that no one can ever change those who are by nature and habit prone to sin, not even by punishing them.
B Now, that the arrangement, composition, and phrasing of the discourses from philosophy have had such success with the aforementioned, who had previously lived wicked lives, is not at all surprising. But when we consider the discourses which Celsus calls "lowly" and "common," as if they were incantations filled with power, and when we observe the words, which suddenly encourage multitudes from living the most licentious lives to a most stable one, and from unjust to better ones, and from being cowardly to being so stout-hearted as to despise even death for the sake of the piety that was revealed among them—how shall we not justly admire the power within them? For the word of those who first championed these things and labored to establish the Churches of God—but also their preaching—was indeed persuasive, yet not with the kind of persuasion found in those who boast of C the wisdom of Plato or any of the others who have philosophized, being men who possessed nothing other than what belongs to human nature. But the proof given to the apostles of Jesus from God was a demonstration from the Spirit and power. Wherefore their word ran most quickly and sharply; or rather, the word of God, transforming through them many who were naturally and habitually prone to sin—whom no human being could have transformed even by punishing them, but the Word changed, shaping and molding them according to His own will.
And Celsus, saying things consistent with himself, remarks that it is altogether very difficult to change one's nature. But we, knowing that there is one nature for every rational soul, and asserting that no soul was created evil by the Creator of all—but that many have become evil because of their bringing-up, and their corruptions, and their associations, so that in some cases wickedness has been as it were ingrained by nature—we are persuaded that for the divine Word it is not only not impossible, but also not at all difficult to change even wickedness that has become natural, once someone simply accepts that he ought to entrust himself to the God over all, and everything… D
A that he does, he does with reference to pleasing Him, before whom
"Honored alike are the base and the noble," B or "Dying alike are the idle man and he who has wrought much."
If, however, it is truly very difficult for some to change, the cause must be said to be their volition, which refuses to give assent to this truth: that the highest God will be a just judge for everyone regarding all the things they have done in this life. For great is the power of volition joined with discipline, even in regards to things that appear to us most difficult, and—to speak hyperbolically—nearing the impossible. Can human nature, having willed to walk upon a rope, stretched aloft through the middle of a theater, be able, through discipline and C attentiveness, to do such a thing while even bearing such great and heavy burdens; and yet, having willed to live according to virtue, be unable to do so, even if it had previously become most base? But see whether, perhaps, he who speaks such things is bringing a charge not against the person who has been fashioned, but against the Creator of the rational animal. For if He has made human nature capable of such difficult things, which are in no way useful, yet impossible regarding its own blessedness, [that would be absurd]. But let these suffice to address this statement of Celsus, that to change nature completely is a very difficult matter.
He subjoins that "those who are without sin are to be granted a better life." But he does not clarify whom he calls "those without sin"—whether those who have not sinned from the beginning, or those who have changed and do not sin. Those who have not sinned from the beginning, however, cannot exist; but those who have changed and do not sin, and whom our salutary doctrine has rendered such, these are very rare. Nor do even such people come to the doctrine, for without it, and its perfection, no one can be without sin.
D 70. He then raises an objection, as if we were saying: "God can do all things." He does not understand in what sense this is said, nor what these "all things" encompass, nor how He can do them—concerning which it is not necessary to speak for the present. For he himself, even though he might have been able to argue about this matter in a plausible way, did not do so; perhaps because he was not aware of the plausibility that could be brought against him on this point, or because he was aware of it but foresaw the response that would be made to him. Certainly, we profess that God can do all things, yet those things which He can do, He does without any detriment to His divinity, goodness, and wisdom. But Celsus, as one who did not grasp in what sense God is said to be able to do all things, says that "He will not wish anything unjust"—giving the impression that He can indeed do what is unjust, but does not wish to. We, however, say that just as that which is by nature sweet cannot, by the power of its own simple cause, make things bitter—for that would be contrary to its own nature—nor can that which is born to give light darken things, so too God cannot do what is unjust; for the power to do injustice is contrary to His divinity and to all the power that is consonant with it. But if any of existing things can
by its nature do what is unjust, that power arises in it from the fact that its nature is not such that it is unable A to do injustice.
71. Next, he takes for himself a point that is not conceded by those who believe more rationally, though perhaps it is thought to be so by some foolish people, as if "God, humbled like those who are slaves to pity, relieves the wicked, moved by the pity of those who are being pitied; and, seeing nothing of the sort, casts off the good—which is most unjust." For, in our view, God does not relieve any wicked person who has not yet turned to virtue, nor does He cast off anyone who is already good. But He does not relieve or pity—if I may use the word "pity" in a somewhat novel sense—anyone who is simply pitied by others; rather, God receives, for the sake of repentance, those who have severely condemned themselves for their own sins, so that they, as it were, mourn and lament themselves as exiles on account of their past deeds, and show a noteworthy transformation, and those who have changed from a most wicked life. For virtue grants amnesty to such people, dwelling within their souls and having cast out the wickedness that had previously occupied them. But if virtue is not yet present, yet a notable progress has come about in the soul, this too is sufficient, according to the proportion of such progress, to cast out and cause to vanish the flow of wickedness, so that it is nearly B nowhere to be found in the soul.
72. Then, as if speaking on behalf of one who is teaching our doctrine, he says: "For wise men shun what we say, led astray and hindered by their own wisdom." We shall reply to this, therefore, that if wisdom is a knowledge of divine and human things, and of the causes by which these things are held together, or, as the divine Scripture defines it, "a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty, and a brightness of eternal light, and an unspotted mirror of the operation of God, and an image of His goodness" (Wisdom of Solomon 7:25-26), I say that no one who is wise would shun what a learned Christian might discuss regarding his own religion, nor would he be led astray or hindered by that wisdom. For true wisdom does not deceive, but ignorance does; and of all things, only knowledge and truth are stable, both of which come from wisdom. But if you style as C wise one who, contrary to the definition of wisdom, dogmatizes about whatever he likes by means of certain sophisms, we shall say that indeed such a person, according to your so-called wisdom, shuns the words of God, being led astray by plausibilities and sophisms, and hindered by them. And since, according to our doctrine, the knowledge of evil is not wisdom—but rather, if I may put it this way, the knowledge of evil is a kind of wisdom among those who hold false opinions—
pien iam vocaverim potius ignorantiam. A and deceived by sophisms; for which reason I would call it ignorance rather than wisdom in such matters. After this, he again rails against him who professes Christianity; and while he speaks of it as ‹ridiculous›, he does not demonstrate, nor does he clearly show, what he says is ‹ridiculous›. And railing, he says, ‹No wise man,› he says, ‹assents to the doctrine, being distracted B by the multitude of those who come over to it.› He does the same thing here, asserting that because of the multitude of simple people who are led by the laws, no wise man, for instance, obeys Solon, or Lycurgus, or Zaleucus, or any of the others; and especially if he takes a wise man to be one who has excelled in virtue. For just as in these cases, according to what appeared useful to them, the legislators made laws to surround them with such conduct, so also God, legislating in Jesus for men everywhere, leads even those who are not wise, as far as it is possible for such people to be led to the better. C Which, as we have said above, God, who was in Moses, knowing, says: ‹They provoked me with that which was not God, they angered me with their idols; and I will provoke them with that which is not a people, I will anger them with a foolish nation.› And Paul also, knowing this, said: ‹God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, that he may confound the wise;› calling ‹wise› in a general sense all those who seem to have made much progress in learning, but have fallen into godless polytheism; for ‹professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God D into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and creeping things.›
74. Furthermore, he accuses our teacher, ‹that he seeks the insane.› To him I would say: Whom, pray, do you call insane? For if you examine the matter diligently, no evil man is without being insane. Therefore, if the evil are insane to you, when you yourself bring men to philosophy, which do you endeavor to bring, the evil or the upright? You certainly cannot bring the latter: for they are already philosophers; therefore, the evil. If the evil, then they are wicked. Yet you seek to bring many such to philosophy: therefore you seek the insane. I, however, even if I sought the insane in this sense, would be acting like a humane physician who seeks out the sick in order to apply remedies to them, and by which he might restore their strength. But if you call those insane who are slow and the most stupid of men, I confess that I also endeavor, as much as I can, to make them better, but I do not want the society of Christians to consist of them. I should prefer to seek the more intelligent and sharper ones, who are able to grasp the interpretation of mysteries, and what is in the Law,
and the things said with concealment in the prophets and the Gospels, which you have despised as though they contained nothing worth mentioning, A having never examined the intelligence within them, nor attempted to enter into the intention of those who wrote them.
75. Afterward he says that the teacher of Christianity does something similar to one who promises to make bodies healthy while discouraging them from attending to skilled physicians, in order that his own ignorance might not be exposed by them. To this we shall respond: Whom do you call physicians, from whom we discourage the simple? You certainly do not suppose that we direct those whom we exhort toward our divine religion to philosophers, so that you might think them to be the physicians from whom we discourage those whom we call to the divine Word. Either, therefore, he does not answer because he cannot say who these physicians are, or he is forced to have recourse to the ignorant, who themselves also babble in a servile way B about many gods and whatever else ignorant persons might say. Both ways, therefore, he will be shown to have taken up in vain, in his argument, the one who discourages from skilled physicians.
But if we also discourage those who are deceived by the philosophy of Epicurus, and by those who are considered physicians according to Epicurus, how shall we not act most reasonably by ridding them of the grievous disease which Celsus’s physicians implanted in them, namely, the denial of providence and the introduction of pleasure as the good? But let it be that we make these people, whom we exhort to our Word, renounce other philosophers—those from the Peripatetics, who do away with providence toward us and the relationship of the Divine to human beings. How shall we not make those we have exhorted pious, and heal those we convince to dedicate themselves to the God over all, delivering those who trust in us from the great wounds inflicted by the doctrines of those supposed philosophers? But let it also be allowed that we discourage them from Stoic physicians, who introduce a corruptible God and say that his substance is a body mutable throughout, and alterable and changeable, and who hold that all things are eventually destroyed, and that only God is left remaining. C How shall we not, in this way as well, deliver those who trust in us from evils, and lead them by a pious argument to dedicate themselves to the Creator and to admire the Father of the Christian teaching, who most humanely converts [souls]?
There is no one, then, of all of them— Chrysippus, according to Antipater. For he thinks that nothing except fire is free from destruction among the gods, but that all are equally both born and destined to perish. These things are said by him everywhere, so to speak. I will append the statement from the third book of *On the Gods*, according to another discourse. For some are generated and perishable; others are ungenerated. I should say that no one, therefore, of all of them... no god is free from destruction, but all are equally both born and destined to perish.
A And if, furthermore, we bring medicinal aid to those who, by the doctors—those who relegate those possessing a nature capable of reason, at one time into that which is entirely devoid of reason, and at another time into that which is without capacity for imagination—have been infatuated by that insane opinion of the transmigration of souls into various bodies; are not their souls rendered better, when we persuade them that he who is wicked is not, when he is punished, deprived of sense and reason, but rather that the labors imposed by God and the penalties inflicted upon the wicked are remedies by which, when corrected, they may turn back to Him? For this is what prudent Christians think; and they instruct the simpler among them as fathers do little children. We do not therefore act as authors of folly for little ones or rustics, so that they might flee from physicians; nor do we say to them, "Take care that none of you grasp at knowledge," nor do we declare that knowledge is an evil; nor have we reached such a pitch of insanity that we should believe that men are removed from the health of the soul by cognition, or that anyone has ever been corrupted by wisdom. Although we teach, yet no one of us has said, "Cleave to me," but rather, "Cleave to the God of all things and to Jesus, the teacher B of the doctrines concerning Him." And no one among us is so arrogant as to say to his associates, what Celsus has nonetheless assigned to one of our teachers, "I alone will save you." Observe, therefore, how many lies he tells against us. Nor has it ever been said by us that "men are killed by true physicians to whom they promise health."
76. "He does the same thing," he says, "as a teacher among them, as if someone, being drunk and moving among the drunk, should accuse those who are sober of being drunk." Let him prove, therefore, from the writings of Paul (to give an example), that the apostle of Jesus was drunk, or that his words were not those of a sober man—or from those things which John wrote, that his thoughts do not breathe of one who is temperate and free from the drunkenness of vices. No teacher of the Christian religion, therefore, is not sober, none can be accused of drunkenness; and the insults which Celsus throws at us regarding this matter are unworthy of a philosopher. Furthermore, let Celsus point out who those sober men are, whom our teachers are supposed to treat with injury. For we call those men drunk indeed, who offer prayers to inanimate things as if to God. And what did I say, drunk? They are rather insane, who run into the temples D and adore statues or animals as if they were gods. And those are no wiser who think that things fashioned by base and sometimes most wicked craftsmen have been constructed in honor of the true gods.
77. After this, he compares the teacher to one who has an eye infection, and the pupils to those likewise afflicted—for those who are suffering from eye infections—and he says, "This man, in the case of those who have eye infections, accuses those who see clearly of being the ones who are blind." Who, therefore, O Greeks, should we say are the ones who seem to us to be blind, except those who, from the great mass of things...
in the world and the beauty of the A works of creation, are unable to look up and perceive that it is necessary to worship, admire, and honor only the one who made these things, and that nothing of the things manufactured among men and taken up for the honor of gods can be properly worshipped, whether without the Creator God or together with Him? For it is the work of minds that are blind to compare things that are in no way comparable with that which surpasses all created nature by an infinite degree of superiority. We do not, therefore, say that those who see clearly are suffering from eye-disease or are blind, but we say that those who are wallowing in ignorance of God, in temples, and statues, and so-called feast days, have had their minds blinded; and especially because, in addition to this impiety, they live in licentiousness, not even seeking what a reverent action might be, but practicing everything worthy of shame. B
After these things, having leveled so many accusations against us, he wishes to intimate that he has other things to say, though he passes them over in silence. His statement is as follows: «Such are the things I blame, and things like these, that I may not recount them all; and I say that they do wrong by abusing God, that they may lead away wicked men with empty hopes, and persuade them to despise the better things, as if, by abstaining from them, it will be better for them.» To these things it might be replied, from the force of that which brings men to the Christian religion, that it is not altogether the most wicked who are led away by the Word, but rather the simpler ones and, if I may so speak, the unrefined. For these, moved by fear of the punishments announced, which urges them to refrain from those things for which the punishments are destined, hasten to devote themselves to the religion according to Christianity; being so overcome by the Word that, for fear of the eternal punishments named in the teaching, they do not hesitate to despise every torture conceived by men against them and death with a myriad of pains, which no one of sound mind would say is the work of a perverse C disposition. For how is self-control and temperance practiced from a perverse disposition, or generosity and social concern? But not even the fear toward the Divine, to which the Word exhorts those not yet able to see that which is to be chosen for its own sake, and to choose it as the greatest good, even beyond every promise — as something useful for the many; from which it is not in the nature of things for this to emerge in one who has chosen to live in wickedness.
If, however, anyone imagines that there is superstition rather than wickedness in the many who believe in the Word, and blames our Word for making them superstitious, we shall answer him that, just as one of the lawgivers D said to one who questioned him—
whether he had given the best laws to his citizens—that he had not given the absolutely best, but the best that they could accept; so also could the Word, the author of the Christian religion, be said to have instituted the best laws and teachings for the improvement of morals of which the many were capable. He threatened punishments, not false ones, but true ones necessary for the correction of those who resist, even if they do not entirely understand either the intention of the one punishing or the purpose of the punishments. This doctrine concerning punishments is both as useful as it is consistent with the truth, and it is obscurely transmitted for the great benefit of men. Moreover, usually, it is not the wicked who are enticed by Christian teachers to religion, nor are we injurious toward God. For we preach true things about Him, which even seem clear to the multitude, although they are not as clear to them as they are to the few who are exercised in the investigation of our doctrines.
80. Since Celsus, looking to what we teach about the blessed life and future communion with God, accuses the Christians of being led by vain hope, I refute him thus: "Hey you, do you therefore think that they are delighted by a vain hope—those who, with Pythagoras and Plato as their authors, have been persuaded that such is the nature of the soul that it [it goes] outside of heaven? No poet B of those here has yet sung, nor will ever sing, of the supercelestial place according to its worth."
The Nature of the Soul and its Ascent to the Supercelestial Sphere
"For there were then many blessed visions and ways within heaven, as the race of those blessed gods performs its turn, each of them performing his own. And the one who always wills and is able follows; for envy stands outside the divine chorus. But when they go to a banquet and a feast, they travel upward toward the summit C to the celestial arch; the vehicles of the gods, being balanced and easy to guide, proceed easily, but the others proceed with difficulty. For the horse that partakes of wickedness is heavy, tending toward the earth and leaning by its own weight, whichever horse has not been well nurtured by its charioteer; where, indeed, labor and the final struggle are set before the soul. For those called immortal, when they arrive at the summit, having gone outside, stand upon the back of heaven; and the revolution carries them around as they stand; D and they contemplate the things outside of heaven.
"But it was possible then to see brilliance, when we were following with that blessed chorus to witness that happy sight and vision—we indeed with Zeus, but others with another of the gods—and were initiated into mysteries which it is proper to call the most blessed of all mysteries: which we celebrated, being ourselves whole and immune and free from those evils which awaited us in later time; and we were initiated into whole and simple and immovable and happy spectacles."
A and into the view of the blessed spectators. But according to you, O Celsus, even those who accept the soul's subsistence beyond, and live so as to become heroes and to have their converse with the gods, are misled by vain hopes. And perhaps Celsus would say that even those who are persuaded concerning the intellect that comes from without, as though it were to have a new departure at death, are misled by vain hopes. Let him therefore enter the contest, no longer concealing his own school, but acknowledging himself an Epicurean in the face of the arguments—not to be despised—which are put forward among both Greeks and barbarians concerning the immortality of the soul, or its subsistence beyond, or the immortality of the intellect; and let him demonstrate that these are indeed doctrines deceiving those who agree with them with vain hopes, while those of his own philosophy are free from vain hopes; and that they either lead to good hopes or—which is more consistent for him—produce no hope at all, because of the immediate and total destruction of the soul. Unless, indeed, Celsus and the Epicureans will deny that the hope concerning their end, pleasure—which according to them is the good, namely the stable condition of the body, and the belief held by Epicurus concerning this—is a vain hope.
Do not imagine that I have inappropriately, for the sake of the Christian argument, adopted to use against Celsus those who have philosophized concerning the immortality or the subsistence of the soul. For having certain common grounds with them, we shall the more opportunely show that the future blessed life will belong only to those who have accepted the piety toward Jesus, and the piety toward the Creator of all that is sincere and pure and unmixed with any created thing whatsoever. Let him who wishes to show what are the better things we persuade men to despise, and let him set in opposition to our end—which is in God, in Christ, that is, in the Word and in Wisdom and in all virtue, a blessed end for those who in an unblamable manner B C D [The remainder of the column 1026 and the subsequent apparatus are treated as: [alt-version omitted]]
and will enjoy the Word, Wisdom, and universal virtue, A by the gift of God, we teach those who have passed a life pure and immune from wickedness, and who have loved the God of all things with a perpetual and constant love; let him, I say, compare that end with that which the individual sects of philosophers among the Greeks and barbarians—or those promising things full of mysteries—teach must be expected; and let him show that end to be as true and as consistent with the kindness of God and with those who have lived good lives, while showing that ours is not so; or that these things were not handed down by the divine Spirit filling the souls of the pure prophets. Let him show, strictly if he likes, documents which no one denies to be human that ought to be preferred to those which we demonstrate to be divine and given by the inspiration of God. Finally, what are those goods for which, if they are relinquished, we promise better things? For, so as not to speak arrogantly, it is clear that nothing more excellent can be conceived than to entrust oneself to the God over all, and to embrace the doctrine which draws us away from every created thing and leads us to the supreme God through the animate and living Word, the living Wisdom, and the Son of God. B But now this third book written against Celsus is long enough. Wherefore I will make an end of speaking here, intending to renew the struggle in what follows against the things he has proceeded to write.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS: BOOK FOUR
1. In the three preceding books, we have set forth, holy Ambrose, what occurred to us against the writing of Celsus; now, having invoked God through Christ, we approach the fourth book in regard to what follows. C And would that there might be given to me words such as those concerning which the Lord, speaking to this prophet in Jeremiah, says: "Behold, I have given my words in your mouth as fire; behold, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pull up, and to build, and to plant." For we too have need of words that may "pull up" out of every soul—damaged by the writing of Celsus or by thoughts similar to his—the lies which have wounded it. We have need also of sentiments that may "pull down" all the building of false opinions, and thus that which Celsus in his D
A composition has constructed, not unlike the building of those who said: "Come, let us build for ourselves a city and a tower, whose top shall reach unto heaven" (Gen. xi, 4). But we also need the wisdom that "destroys" every "height" that "exalts itself against the knowledge of God" (II Cor. x, 5), and the height of arrogance by which Celsus exalts himself against us. But it would be a small thing to pull up and to destroy; we must, in the place of those things which have been rooted up, plant others which are suitable for "God's husbandry" (I Cor. iii, 9), and in the place of those which have been pulled down, build the building of God and the temple of the glory of God. For this reason, we must pray to the Lord, the bestower of those things mentioned in Jeremiah, that He may give us also words to build up the things of Christ, and to plant the spiritual law and the prophetic oracles referring to it. And there is the greatest need for us, in regard to the things that follow which are said by Celsus, to establish that they have been rightly prophesied concerning Christ. For Celsus stands against both, against the Jews, who deny that Christ’s advent has occurred, although they hope that it will occur, and against the B Christians, who confess that Jesus is the Christ foretold by the prophets. Thus, therefore, he says:
2. "That some of the Christians and the Jews say either that a certain God or the Son of God has descended or will descend unto the earth to justify the inhabitants of this earth—this is most shameful, and its refutation does not require a long discourse." And he seems specifically to say regarding the Jews, not that some, but that all think a certain one will descend upon the earth; but regarding the Christians, that some of them say that one has descended. For he indicates those who prove from the Jewish Scriptures that Christ’s advent has already taken place; and he seems to know that there are some sects that deny that Jesus is the Christ who was foretold. Now, we have already considered according to our ability in the preceding C books that Christ has been foretold; therefore, we shall not repeat most of the things that could be said on this topic, so that we may not be tautologous. Observe, then, that if he had wished, with any apparently consistent reasoning, to overturn the faith concerning the prophecies, or concerning Christ’s intention to descend or having descended, he ought to have set forth the prophecies themselves, which we—Christians and Jews—use when disputing with one another. For thus he might have seemed to turn those away who are troubled, as he thinks, by a probability, away from their assent to the prophetic writings and their faith, through the prophetic writings, in Jesus as being the Christ. But as it is, whether because he is unable to respond to the prophecies concerning Christ, or because he does not even know at all what things are prophesied concerning Him, he puts forward not a single word of prophecy, [even though there are] countless things [recorded] concerning Christ. And he seems to refute them for himself, without even setting forth the probability which he judges to be in them; nor did he even know that it is not...
at all the case that the Jews say that the Christ or the Son of God is to descend, as we have also said before. And having said that he is described by us as having descended, but by the Jews as a justifier who is to descend—he thinks that he is thereby A attacking the prophetic writings, without even putting forward the probability that he would attribute to them, nor even thinking it requires a long refutation.
3. Afterward, he asks, "With what purpose did God descend here?" He is obviously unaware that the purpose of this descent is assigned by us. Primarily, indeed, that the so-called "lost sheep of the house of Israel" in the Gospel might be converted; and secondly, that because of their unbelief, he might take away from them what is called the kingdom of God, and give it to other husbandmen, namely, to the Christians—who, instead of the ancient Jews, would render the fruits of the kingdom of God to God, in the times of each action being the fruits of the kingdom. We, then, have said a few things out of many in response to Celsus’s question, "For what is the purpose for God of such descent?" But Celsus ascribes to himself arguments that were not made either by the Jews or by us, saying, "Or is it so that he might learn what is among men?" For none of us says that Christ dwells in human life in order to learn what is among men. Then, as if some had B said, "So that he might learn what is among men," he objects to himself on this, "Does he not then know all things?" Then, as if they were answering that he does know, he again raises a difficulty, saying: "If he knows, why does he not correct them; or is it not possible for him to correct them by divine power?" And all these things he says foolishly. For God, by his own Word, always descending into holy souls generation by generation and producing friends of God and prophets, corrects those who show themselves teachable; and at the advent of Christ, he uses Christian doctrine to correct not those who do not wish to be corrected, but those who choose a better life, which is pleasing to God. But I do not know what kind of correction Celsus wishes to have taken place, so he raises a difficulty, saying: "Was it not in his divine power to correct them, unless someone were sent for this express purpose?" Or would he want C human wickedness to be suddenly removed by God and virtue to be inserted, so that men would be reformed by new conceptions of images? Another might inquire whether this is consistent with nature or if it can happen; but for my part, I say it can. But what then becomes of free will? How will assent given to the truth be worthy of praise? How will turning away from the lie be placed among things worthy of praise? I indeed admit that it could have been done and that it would have been fitting; but let someone who imitates Celsus ask, could not God, by his divine power, have created men from the beginning so addicted to virtue and so perfect that there would be no wickedness, and thus they would need no correction? These things might perhaps move simple and slow-witted people, but not one who looks into the nature of things. For he knows that virtue is by nature to such an extent D that he [might inquire] if it is consistent or possible for nature as such. But we would say: let it be, and let it be possible for this to exist. Where then is free will? And where is the praiseworthy assent to the truth, or the acceptable rejection of the lie? But even if it were granted once that this is possible and is done appropriately, why would one not rather look to the beginning—arguing somewhat like Celsus—that it was not possible for God by divine power to have made men without even having need of correction, men [who were] not [merely] imagined to be so because God had [by force] removed evil and implanted virtue?
A These things can indeed deceive the unlearned and the weak, but not one who perceives the nature of things; for if you remove the voluntary nature of virtue, you have also removed its essence. A complete treatise on these matters would be necessary, a subject on which the Greeks have spoken not a little in their books on Providence; and they would not have said what Celsus set forth, saying: "He knows indeed, but does not correct, nor is it possible for Him to correct by divine power." And we, too, have spoken on these matters as far as we were able in many places, and the divine words have set them forth to those who are able to hear them.
4. B Therefore, the objection which Celsus brings against us and the Jews will be turned against himself. For tell me, good sir, does God who is over all know the things that are in men, or does He not know? But if you posit that there is a God and Providence, as your writing indicates, it is necessary that He know. But if He knows, why does He not correct? Or is it necessary for us to render an account of why He does not correct human affairs, even though He knows; while you, who in your writing do not openly declare yourself an Epicurean, but pretend to recognize Providence, are not bound to say why God, having a clear view of all things in men, does not correct them, nor by His divine power deliver all from wickedness? But we do not hesitate to say that God always sends those who might correct. C For there are instructions given by God to men among whom they live, by which they may be provoked to the best things; although there is much difference among the ministers whom God employs. Indeed, there are few who teach the truth with absolute purity and work toward the perfect correction of men; such were Moses and the prophets. Yet, in addition to all these, the correction through Jesus is great, since He did not desire that only those in one corner of the inhabited world should be healed, but, as far as it depended on Him, those everywhere as well; for He came as the Savior of all men.
5. D After this, the very noble Celsus, not knowing whence he took it, raises an objection against us as if we were saying that "God Himself descends to men." And he thinks that it follows from this that "He must abandon His own throne." For he does not know the power of God, and that "the Spirit of the Lord has filled the inhabited world, and that which holds all things together has knowledge of the voice." Nor is he able to understand: "Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord." Nor does he see that, according to the doctrine of the Christians, we all live and move and have our being in Him, as Paul also taught in his speech to the Athenians. Even if, therefore, the God of the universe, by His own power, descends with Jesus into this human life, and even if the Word who was in the beginning with God, being Himself God, comes to us, He does not become "out of place," nor does He abandon His own throne; so that one place is empty of Him, while another, which did not possess Him before, is filled. But the power and divinity of God are present where He wills and in whom He finds a place, not changing position, nor leaving one place for another.
For when we say that He A leaves one and fills another, we do not mean this in terms of place; rather, we shall say that the soul of one who is base and poured out in wickedness is abandoned by God, while the soul of one who desires to live according to virtue, or is already making progress, or already living according to it, is filled or becomes a participant in the divine Spirit. There is no need, therefore, for Christ’s descent, or for God’s turning toward men, to leave behind a greater seat or for things here to be changed, as Celsus thinks when he says: «For if you were to change even the smallest of things here, everything would collapse and be ruined.» But if we must say that there is a change when a person is transformed by the presence of the power of God and the advent of the Word among men, we shall not hesitate to say that a change occurs from base to noble, from lewd to temperate, and from superstitious to pious, for one who has received the advent of the Word of God into his own soul.
If, however, you wish for us to respond to the most ridiculous points of Celsus, hear him saying: «But because God is unknown among men, and for this reason thinks He lacks something, He wishes to be known, and to put to the test those who believe and those who do not; just as those who have recently acquired great wealth among men are wont to show off, and so they testify against God, that He takes great pleasure in mortal glory.» We say, therefore, that God is unknown by base men, not because He Himself thinks He lacks something and wishes to be known, but so that the knowledge of Him might free the one who B knows Him from misery. Nor is it because He wishes to test those who believe or those who disbelieve that He either visits some in His ineffable and divine power, or sends His Christ, but rather so that those who believe and grasp His divinity might be freed from every misery, and so that the disbelievers might no longer have any room for excuse, as if they did not believe because they had not heard and been taught. What reasoning, then, shows that it follows from our opinion that God is like those who have recently become rich and are wont to show off? For God does not show off to us, wishing us to understand and perceive His superiority; rather, desiring the blessedness which comes to our souls from being known by us to grow within us, He works through C Christ and the constant advent of the Word, that we might receive familiarity with Him. Thus, the faith of the Christians attributes no mortal ambition to God.
7. I do not know how, after having babbled to no purpose on the matters we set forth, later he at some point concludes that «He does not require to be known for His own sake, but for the sake of our salva-
salvation; so that those who accept Him, having become good, may be saved; while those who do not accept Him, having been shown to be wicked, may be punished.” And having set forth such a point, he raises a difficulty, saying: “Why then, after so many ages, has God remembered to justify the life of men, whereas before He was heedless?”
To this we shall reply that there is no time when God did not wish to justify the life of men; rather, He always cared for it, giving to the rational animal opportunities for virtue to be corrected. For in each generation, the wisdom of God, passing into souls which He finds holy, makes them friends of God and prophets. Moreover, one may find in the sacred books those who in each generation were holy and receptive of the divine Spirit; and how they turned those among them, as much as they were able.
But it is nothing B strange that in some generations there have been prophets who excelled in the reception of divinity, on account of a more intense and vigorous life, compared to certain other prophets of their own time, or those before or after them. And so it is not strange that there should have been a certain time when something extraordinary came to the race of men, which was different from those before it or those after it.
But the account concerning these things has something more mystical and deeper, and which cannot altogether reach the more common ear. And it is necessary, in order for these things C to be cleared up, and to meet what is said concerning the advent of Christ (that “Why then, after so many ages, did God remember to justify the race of men, whereas before He was heedless?”), to touch upon the account of the portions, and to explain why, “when the Most High divided the nations, when He scattered the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God; and the portion of the Lord became His people Jacob, the lot of His inheritance Israel” (Deut. xxxii, 8, 9). And there will be need to state the cause of the birth into each boundary, under the one who obtained the boundary by lot, and how it came to pass reasonably that the portion of the Lord was His people Jacob, the lot of His inheritance Israel; and why at first the portion of the Lord was His people Jacob, the lot of His inheritance Israel; but concerning the later times it is said to the Savior by the Father: “Ask of me, and I will give Thee the nations as Thine inheritance, and D the ends of the earth as Thy possession” (Psal. ii, 8). For there are certain linkages and successions, unspeakable and indescribable, concerning the diverse dispensation regarding human souls.
Christ came, therefore, even if Celsus does not wish it, after many prophets who corrected the people of that Israel, as the corrector of the whole world; not needing, according to the former dispensation, the use of scourges, and bonds, and tortures toward the correcting of men. For when
A the Sower went forth to sow, it was sufficient to teach that his doctrine should be disseminated everywhere. But if there be any time appointed, bounding the world with a necessary boundary, because it has had a beginning; and if a certain end is to be appointed for the world, and after the end a just judgment for all things, it will be necessary for him who philosophizes upon the Word to establish these things with manifold proofs, both from the divine Scriptures and from logical consequences. But the common and simpler man, who is unable to follow the most varied contemplations of the wisdom of God, having entrusted himself to God and to the Saviour of our race, ought to be satisfied with this "He himself said" [(15)], rather than with anything else whatsoever.
After this, again, as is his custom, Celsus, without having established or proved anything, as if we do not speak of God holily and piously, says: "That they do not speak of God holily and piously is clear" [(44)]. And he thinks that we do these things to terrify the unlearned, and not because we speak the truth regarding the punishments necessary for those who have sinned. Wherefore he compares B us to those who in the Bacchic mysteries bring forward phantoms and terrors. Now, as to the Bacchic mysteries, whether there is any plausible reason for them or not, let the Greeks speak, and let Celsus and his fellow-initiates listen; but we defend our own position, saying that our purpose is to amend the human race, whether by the threats of punishments, which we are persuaded are necessary for the universe, and perhaps not useless to those who are about to suffer them; or by the promises of a blessed life in the kingdom of God, made to those who will have lived well, and who will be worthy of having God as their king. C
After this, wishing to show that we say nothing paradoxical or new regarding the flood or the conflagration, but rather that we have misunderstood what is said by the Greeks or barbarians regarding these things and attributed it to our own Scriptures, he says: "They have come upon these things also, after having misunderstood them, that according to long cycles of time, and the returns and conjunctions of the stars, conflagrations and floods occur; and that after the last flood in the time of Deucalion, the period requires, according to the vicissitude of all things, that a conflagration should take place. D This is the cause of their error: hence it is that they say that God will descend as a torturer, bearing fire." And to this we shall say, that it is wonderful indeed that Celsus, a man who has read much and shown himself to have read many histories, has not attended to the antiquity of Moses, whom even some among the Greeks report to have lived around the time...
of Inachus, the father of Phoroneus, whom the Egyptians acknowledge to be most ancient, as do the writers of Phoenician affairs. Let him also unfold, if he pleases, the two books of Flavius Josephus Concerning the Antiquity of the Jews. A Hence he will learn how much older Moses is than those who, after long periods of time had elapsed, said that deluges and conflagrations occur in this world; and whom, if Celsus is to be believed, the Jews and Christians misunderstood, such that, in what they taught concerning the conflagration, they said, "God will descend like a torturer armed with fire."
B Whether there are cycles, and whether there are deluges or conflagrations according to these cycles, or whether there are not, and whether the Word understands these things—this is not the time for such a discussion, though it is spoken of in many places, and in this passage of Solomon: "What is that which has been? It is that which will be. What is that which has been made? It is that which will be made," and so forth. It is enough merely to note that the most ancient men, Moses and certain of the prophets, did not receive these things concerning the conflagration of the world from others. Rather, if one must insist on the chronology, it is others who misinterpreted them, and not having accurately weighed what was said by these men, fashioned identical events according to cycles, C and those which did not differ in their own peculiar qualities or in the accidents attending them. For our part, we do not attribute the deluge or the conflagration to the cycles of the stars, but we say their cause is wickedness, which, when it has increased greatly, is purged by deluge or conflagration. But if the prophetic utterances, which say, "Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord," speak of God as descending, we interpret this figuratively. For God descends from His own magnitude and height when He manages human affairs, and especially those of the wicked. And just as common speech says that teachers "descend" to children, and wise men or those who have made progress descend to the capacity of the young, who are just recently brought to philosophy, not by descending in body—so too, if it is said anywhere in the divine Scriptures that God "descends," it is understood analogously D according to this usage, and the same applies to "ascending."
Since Celsus, mocking, says that we claim God descends like a torturer carrying fire, and forces us to enter into deeper questions not at the proper time, we shall say a few things first, as much as is necessary for an apology that removes Celsus’s objection against us.
A Divinely inspired Scripture calls our God "a consuming fire," and says that "rivers of fire flow before Him," and that He even "enters as the fire of a refiner, and as the herb of fullers, that He may refine His own people." Since, therefore, it is said that He is a consuming fire, we ask: what is it fitting should be consumed by God? And we say that it is wickedness and whatever is done out of it B and which are figuratively called wood, hay, and stubble, that God consumes as fire. Thus, the wicked man is said to build upon the previously laid rational foundation wood, hay, and stubble. Now, if the author had meant these things otherwise, and if one could physically demonstrate the wicked man building wood, hay, or stubble, then it would be clear that the fire, too, would be understood as material and sensible. But if the works of the wicked man are explicitly described figuratively—which are called wood, hay, or stubble—how does it not immediately occur to one what kind of fire is being employed to consume such wood? "For each person's work," he says, "whatever it is, the fire will test. If anyone's work remains that he has built upon it, he will receive a reward; if anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss." C And what kind of work being burned up could be meant here, if not all that is done out of wickedness? Therefore, our God is "a consuming fire," as we have explained; and so He "enters as the fire of a refiner" to refine the rational nature, which has been filled with the lead of wickedness and other unclean materials that adulterate—if I may put it so—the golden or silver nature of the soul. Thus, rivers of fire are also said to be before God, to cause the wickedness that has become intermingled throughout the whole soul to vanish. But these things are sufficient to address the claim: "Hence comes the cause of error; hence it is that they say God will descend like a torturer armed with fire."
14.
Let us look at what Celsus goes on to say with great pretension: "But," he says, "let us go over the matter again from the beginning and with more arguments. I will say nothing new, but what has long been acknowledged. God is good, and beautiful, and blessed, and is in that which is most beautiful and best. If, then, He descends to men, He requires change; and change is from good to evil, from beautiful to shameful, from happiness to misery, and from the best to the most wicked. Who, then, would choose such a change? D Furthermore, it is the nature of mortal things to be changed and to take on another form, while it is that of the immortal to remain ever one and the same. Such a change, therefore, cannot befall God." Now, it seems to me that enough has been said in response to these points, having explained the sense in which God is said in the Scriptures to descend to human affairs: for in doing this He has no need of change, as Celsus thinks we say—nor of a mutation from good to evil, or from fair to base, or from happiness to misery, or from the best to the most wicked. A For He, while remaining immutable in His essence, descends by His providence and dispensation to human affairs. We, therefore, and the divine Scriptures, maintain that God is immutable, as it is written: “But You are the same,” and, “I have not changed.” But the gods of Epicurus, being composed of atoms, and being—so far as their constitution is concerned—indissoluble, are busy trying to shake off the destructive atoms. The God of the Stoics, moreover, being a body, at one time has His whole essence in a ruling state, when the conflagration occurs; and at another time He becomes “superparticular,” when the ordering of the world takes place. For they have not been able to clarify the natural conception of God as being in all respects incorruptible, simple, incomposite, and indivisible.
B He who descended to men “being in the form of God,” also “emptied Himself” out of love for mankind, so that He might be capable of being contained by men. Nor surely has any change from good to evil happened to Him; “for He committed no sin,” nor from fair to base, “for He knew no sin,” nor did He come from happiness to misery; but He humbled Himself, and none the less was He blessed, even when He humbled Himself for the benefit of our race. Nor did any change occur in Him from the best to the most wicked; for where is the most wicked in that which is kind and benevolent? Or is it time to C say...
that the physician, while seeing dreadful things and touching unpleasant things in order to heal the sick, has fallen from good to evil, or from the fair to the foul, or from happiness to misery? And yet, the physician, while seeing such things A and touching unpleasant things, does not entirely escape the risk of being able to fall into the same state. But He who heals the wounds of our souls through the Word of God that is in Him was Himself inaccessible to any vice. But if the immortal God, the Word, by taking on a mortal body and a human soul, seems to Celsus to be changed and transformed, let him learn that the Word, remaining Word in His essence, suffers nothing of what the body or the soul suffers. But condescending at times to those who are unable to behold the scintillations and the brightness of His Divinity, He becomes, as it were, flesh, speaking in a bodily way, until he who has accepted Him in such a manner, being gradually raised up by the Word, may be able to behold also His (so to speak) primary form. B For there are various forms of the Word, as the Word appears to each of those being led into knowledge, corresponding to the capacity of the beginner, or the one progressing a little, or to a greater degree, or the one nearly already having attained virtue, or having been made perfect in virtue. Hence, our God was not transformed in the way Celsus and those like him desire, and, having ascended the high mountain, showed another form of Himself, and one far better than that which those who remained below, and were unable to follow Him to the height, were beholding. For those below did not have eyes capable of seeing the transfiguration of the Word into a more glorious and divine state; but they could barely contain Him, such as He was, so that it might be said concerning Him by those who could not see the better part of Him: C "We saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness, but His form was dishonored, failing before the sons of men." And these things have been said against the assumption of Celsus, who did not understand the changes or transfigurations of Jesus as related in the histories, nor what was mortal in Him and what was immortal.
17. Now are those histories, especially when they are understood as is meet, not far more dignified than the history of Bacchus, who was deceived by the Titans, then driven from the throne of Jove, then torn to pieces by them, and after that reconstituted and, as it were, revived and ascending into heaven? Or is it permitted to the Greeks to refer such things to the soul and to interpret them concerning it, while to us the entrance D to an exposition that is consecutive, consistent, and in every respect harmonious with the Scriptures inspired by the Divine Spirit dwelling in pure souls is completely closed? Celsus, therefore, was entirely ignorant of the intention of our writings. Whence he does not attack the meaning of them, but rather that which he himself attributes to them. If he had understood what follows
regarding the condition of the soul in eternal life, and what it is fitting to think concerning its substance and its principles, it would not have seemed so ridiculous to him that the immortal should have come into a mortal body, not by transmigrating from body to body, as Plato would explain, but by another and far more sublime method. He would also have seen a singular descent, out of great philanthropy, for the sake of calling back the—as the divine Scripture has mystically named them—"lost sheep of the house of Israel," and that he descended from the mountains, to which the shepherd is said in certain parables to have descended, having left behind in the mountains those which had not strayed.
B Celsus, however, lingering on things he has not understood, becomes a cause of tautology to us, though we do not wish it, lest we should seem to have left unexamined anything of what has been said by him. He says, therefore, next: "Either God truly changes into a mortal body, as these men say, and the impossibility of this has previously been stated; or he himself does not change, but makes those who see him think he has changed, and he deceives and lies. But deception and falsehood are otherwise evil, and are only to be used like a drug, either to heal friends who are sick and mad, or to escape a danger threatened by enemies. But no one who is sick or mad is a friend to God; nor does God fear anyone, so as to escape danger by deceiving." To this it may be replied, partly regarding the nature of the divine Word who is God, C and partly regarding the soul of Jesus. Concerning the nature of the Word, we say, just as the quality of food in the nurturer is changed into milk to suit the nature of the infant, or is prepared by a physician for the benefit of the sick in the manner necessary for their health, or is adapted to the stronger as they are better able, so too does God transform the power of the Word, which is naturally suited to nourish the human soul, for men, each according to their worth. And to some it becomes, as the Scripture has named it, "rational unadulterated milk," while to another, as to one weaker, it is as it were "pot-herbs," and to another still, "solid food" D is dispensed. And the Word does not at all belie his own nature by becoming suitable for each one according as he is able to receive him; and he does not deceive, nor does he lie. But if one takes the change to refer to the soul of Jesus, in that it came into a body, we shall ask, in what way do you speak of change? For if you speak of the substance, I deny that either that or any other rational soul is changed; but if you mean that it suffers something by being mixed with the body and from the place into which it has come, what absurdity can be brought against the Word, who out of great philanthropy sent down the Savior to the race of men? Since none of those who have previously professed to heal...
are capable of doing as much as this soul has shown itself to have done through the things it has accomplished, having voluntarily descended to the human infirmities on behalf of our race. The divine writers, knowing these things, have said much about them in many places; but for the present it will be sufficient to cite one statement of Paul, which has it thus: A “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name.”*
19. Let others then grant to Celsus that He did not change, but made those who saw Him believe that He had changed; but we, who are fully persuaded that Jesus came to men not in appearance only, but truly and manifestedly, are not subject to the accusation of Celsus. Nevertheless, let us defend ourselves thus: Do you not yourself admit, O Celsus, that you allow the use of deception and falsehood as a remedy? What absurdity is there, then, if some such thing was employed, provided that it was going to contribute to salvation? For it happens that through certain discourses composed for the sake of B falsehood, such as physicians sometimes use towards the sick, you might correct morals more easily than if you had employed the truth. Let these things be said by us in defense of others. For it is not absurd for one who is healing sick friends to relieve the race of men, which is dear to Him, with such remedies, which one would not employ primarily, but out of necessity. And since the race of men was mad, it had to be healed by methods which the Word saw were useful for the mad, so that they might regain their senses. C But he says that "someone does such things towards enemies, fearing to escape danger. But God fears no one, so that he would have to deceive those plotting against Him in order to escape danger." That is entirely superfluous and irrational, for no one has ever said such things about our Savior. But as to the point that "no one who is sick or mad is a friend to God," I have already responded for others. For I said that this dispensation did not take place on account of those sick or mad who were already friends, but so that those who were still enemies on account of the disease of the soul and the alienation of natural reason might be received into friendship with God. D For Jesus is clearly said to have endured all things so that He might free those who had sinned from their sins and make them righteous.*
20. Furthermore, he introduces Jews, who separately bring forward the cause for why they believe that the coming of Christ is yet to be.
* Phil. II, 5. * Hebr. II, 15; Matth. IX, 15.
Let us now consider, as briefly as possible, both these points, as they are matters that actually occurred. Among the Jews, the argument takes this form: "Since life is filled with every kind of vice, it is necessary that God should send someone to punish the wicked and cleanse all things, as happened at the time of the first flood." Since it is said that Christians add other matters to these, it is clear that celsus claims these things are asserted by them as well. And what is absurd in the idea that, when vice floods the earth, One will come to cleanse the world and deal with everyone according to his merits? For it does not befit God to allow spreading wickedness to go unchecked, and not to restore all things. The Greeks also know that the earth is cleansed at certain intervals—either by fire or by flood—as Plato himself says somewhere: B "When the gods, purifying the earth with water, bring about a flood, then those who dwell in the mountains, etc." Must we then say that if the Greeks assert these things, the proposals are solemn and worth discussing, but if we ourselves put forward the same things that are praised by the Greeks, these doctrines are no longer good? Yet those who care for the ordered and accurate consideration of all written texts will try to show not only the antiquity of those who wrote them, but also the solemnity of what was said and how consistent those things are.
I do not know how he thinks the destruction of the tower is in any way similar to the flood that cleansed the earth, as the account of the Jews and Christians desires. For in order that the history concerning the tower, which is recorded in Genesis, might hint at nothing, but rather—as Celsus thinks—be clear, it does not appear that this occurred for the cleansing of the earth; unless perhaps he believes that the so-called confusion of languages served the purpose of a cleansing of the earth. Anyone who is learned will discuss this more opportunely when he proposes to show both what this history means in its obvious sense, and to what more hidden matters it should be referred. C But since Celsus believes that Moses, who recorded the events concerning the tower and the confusion of languages, took his account from the corrupted history of the Aloadae, D and recorded these things about the tower, it must be said that I do not believe anyone spoke of the matters concerning the Aloadae before Homer; whereas the matters concerning the tower, I am persuaded, were recorded by Moses, who was much more ancient not only than Homer, but even than the invention of Greek letters. Who then, rather, corrupted whose work? Is it the writer of the fable of the Aloadae who corrupted the history of the tower? Or was it he who wrote of the tower and the confusion of languages who corrupted the fable of the Aloadae? But any fair person acknowledges that Moses is more ancient than Homer. Thus also the accounts concerning Sodom and Gomorrah
recounted by Moses in Genesis, as having been destroyed by fire on account of sin, Celsus compares to the story of Phaethon; having committed one error, that of not having concerned himself with the antiquity of Moses, he has consequently done everything incorrectly. For those who recount the stories concerning Phaethon appear to be even younger than Homer, who is himself much younger than Moses. We do not, therefore, deny that the world will be consumed by a purifying fire, so that vices may be abolished and this universe may be renewed; on the contrary, we profess to have learned this from the sacred books of the prophets. For when, as has been said before, the prophets are shown to have spoken truly regarding things past as they had prophesied regarding things future, and thus have given proof of the divine Spirit dwelling in them, it is clear that one must believe them also regarding future things, or rather, believe the divine Spirit who was in them. B
22. "Christians," continues Celsus, "adding certain arguments to those things said by the Jews, say that the Son of God has already been sent on account of the sins of the Jews, and that the Jews, having punished Jesus and having offered him gall, brought upon themselves the wrath of God." Let him who wishes expose this statement as a lie, if the entire Jewish nation has not been uprooted, and that within a single generation after they had suffered these things at the hands of Jesus. For it is my opinion that forty-two years after Jesus was nailed to the cross, Jerusalem was destroyed. And it has never been heard, since the time the Jews began to exist, that for such a length of time they have been cast out from the practice of their solemn rites and worship, having been overcome by stronger peoples; but if ever they seemed to have been abandoned on account of their sins, they were nonetheless visited, and having returned to their own lands, they performed their sacred rites without anyone hindering them. C Among all the arguments, therefore, which demonstrate that there was something divine and holy in Jesus, this is one: that the Jews have for so long a time—due to him—been involved in so many and such great calamities. Moreover, we will confidently say that they will not be restored to their former state. For the crime they committed against the Savior was the most atrocious of all. D How they ought now to act, and proceed to bring forth for us a prophet into our midst, one who says that the city will certainly be restored. For it is clear to everyone who has even glanced at the prophetic books that if their present captivity were ever to have an end, it was absolutely necessary for the prophets to have foretold these things. For it was an ancient custom among the Jews for the prophets from of old to announce in advance the evils and goods that were to befall them. And that this is true…
namely that God predicted to them all future events, not only from these things, but also from the very things that befell them, both good and evil, I shall demonstrate. The Jews endured three most grievous slaveries, and God brought none upon them without prediction; but He ensured they were all foretold to them, announcing with precision the place, the time, the person, the nature of the affliction, the return, and all other things. A Next, he uses the testimony of Flavius Josephus, which you will find at the end of the tenth book of his *Jewish Antiquities*: "For since he said those things, hear what he says after this: 'In the same way, Daniel wrote about the Roman empire, and that Jerusalem would be captured by them, and that the temple would be laid waste.' But for your part, observe how, although the man who wrote these things was a Jew, yet he did not deign to emulate your contentiousness; for when he said that Jerusalem would be captured, he did not dare to go further and say that it would be restored again, nor did he write a definite time." B After he said these things, hear what he adds. "In the same way," he says, "Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman power and that Jerusalem was to be taken away by them, and the temple desolated." But for your part, consider that although the one who wrote these things was a Jew, he sought not to imitate your obduracy. For when he had said that Jerusalem was to be subverted, he did not dare add that it was to be restored, nor did he prescribe any certain time. It follows immediately: "That Jerusalem and the temple would be desolated, he wrote; but he did not add that the time of desolation would ever end; because he saw that not even the prophet had added this; but he wrote that Jerusalem was to be reduced to solitude and the temple destroyed. Furthermore, he did not add that there would ever be an end to the desolation, because he saw that not even the prophet had added this."
"But Josephus," says the most famous Grotius, "just as he dared not promise anything certain to his people, so he did not cast away all hope, as is apparent even from this passage, where, lamenting the sins of the city and the punishment due to them, he addresses it thus: 'You might perhaps become better again, if ever you appease the God who is to destroy you.'" Another argument is taken from the event: "And that the things said are not false, come, let us provide the testimony from the events themselves. For if they had not attempted to build the temple, they might have had it to say: 'If we had wished to attempt it and apply ourselves to the building, we would surely have had the power and accomplished it.' But now I show them that not once, not twice, but three times they attempted it and were shattered, just as happens in the Olympic games; so that it is beyond doubt that C the crown of the Church is certain."
Furthermore, so that what has been said thus far may not be empty, come, let us bring forth testimony from the things themselves. For if the Jews had never attempted to build the temple, they could say: "If we had wished to undertake the restoration of the temple, we certainly could have, and would have finished it." But now the thing itself demonstrates that they were not once or twice, but three times driven off, no differently than happens in the Olympic contests, so that it might be impossible for anyone to doubt that the crown of victory belongs to the Church. See the rest, which are most worthy of reading, and with which he endeavors to prove that the Jews are never to be restored to their homeland.
Justin thinks differently in his *Dialogue with Trypho*, p. 306: "Tell me truly," says Trypho, "do you admit that this place, Jerusalem, is to be rebuilt, and do you expect that your people will be gathered and made joyful with Christ together with the patriarchs and the prophets, and those from our race, or even those who became proselytes, before Christ comes? Or have you reached the point of admitting these things so that you may appear to overcome us in debate?" To which Justin answered: "I am not so wretched, Trypho, as to say things other than what I think. I admitted to you before that I myself and many others believe this will happen, as you surely know; but I also signified to you that many of the pure and pious Christian profession do not recognize this. For I have already shown you that those who are called Christians, but are lawless and impious heretics, teach things that are in every way blasphemous, godless, and foolish. That you know I do not say this only concerning you, I shall make a compilation of all the discourses we have had, according to my ability, in which I will also write down this which I admit, just as I admit it to you. For I do not choose to follow human teachings, but God and the teachings that come from Him." See ibid., pp. 245, 249, 259, and *Apology* 2, p. 87.
Besides Justin, other authors of great name held this opinion; a catalog of whom you will find in Jerome in the preface to book XVIII of his *Commentaries on Isaiah*: "Nor am I ignorant of how great a diversity of opinion there is among men: I do not speak of the mystery of the Trinity, D whose right confession is a lack of knowledge, but of other ecclesiastical dogmas: of the resurrection, namely, and of the state of souls and the human flesh, of the promises of future things, how they ought to be received, and in what manner the Apocalypse of John is to be understood; which if we take according to the letter, one must Judaize; if we discuss it spiritually as it is written, we will seem to contradict the opinions of many ancients: of the Latins, Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius; of the Greeks, not to mention others, I shall make mention only of Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, against whom the most eloquent man, Dionysius, pontiff of the Alexandrian Church, writes an elegant book, ridiculing the fable of the thousand years, and the Jerusalem on earth made of gold and gems, the restoration of the temple, the blood of sacrifices, the rest of the Sabbath, the injury of circumcision, marriages, births, the education of children, the delights of banquets, and...
were symbols of great mysteries. It was necessary, therefore, that that city, where Jesus had suffered these things, should be utterly destroyed, and the Jewish nation overturned, and that the calling of God to blessedness should have passed to others—I mean the Christians, to whom the doctrine of sincere and pure religion has come, who have received new laws, and such as are adapted to the polity established everywhere. For the commands given formerly, as they were for a single nation governed by its own kindred and like-minded kings, were not such as could now be observed by all.
B 23. After this, Celsus, as is his habit, mocking the race of Jews and Christians, compares all of them either to a flock of bats, or to ants coming out of their nest, or to frogs holding council around a marsh, or to worms assembling in the corner of a dunghill, and disputing with one another as to which of them are the greater sinners, and saying that God shows and announces everything to us beforehand, and that, leaving the whole world and the movement of the heavens, and neglecting so vast an earth, He dwells with us alone 75, and does not cease to send to us, and to be concerned about how we may be united to Him for eternity. C In his fiction, he makes us like to worms who would say: "There is God, but we occupy the place next to Him. He made us entirely like to God. All things have been subjected to us: earth, water, air, and stars; and all things were created for our sake, and everything is destined to serve us." And in his tale, the worms—that is to say, we—say: "Now, since some among us commit sins, God will come or will send His Son, that He may burn up the unrighteous, and that the rest of us may enjoy eternal life with Him." He adds to all these: "These things are more tolerable when said by worms and frogs 76 than when Jews and Christians dispute with one another."
24. To these charges, we inquire of those who accept things spoken in this way against us, and we say: Do you consider all men to be a flock of bats, or ants, or frogs, or worms, because of the excellence of God? Or do you not include other men in the image proposed, D before heaven, but in another state, as befits the time after the resurrection in the thousand years, in the city of divine workmanship, the Jerusalem brought down from heaven; which the Apostle also designates as our mother above, and pronouncing our citizenship—that is, our municipality—to be in heaven, he assigns it to some heavenly city. Ezekiel also knew this, and the Apostle John saw it (Lactant., lib. vii, c. 24). August., lib. xx, cap. 29, *De civitate Dei*: "It is most famous in the words and hearts of the faithful that, through this Elias, the great and wonderful prophet, with the law explained to them, in the last time before the judgment, the Jews are going to believe in the true Christ (that is, in our Christ)." SPENCER. [alt-version omitted]
A And you, while you are using reason and laws, are you to hold them as men, while treating Christians and Jews with contempt on account of doctrines that do not please you, and comparing them to these creatures? And whichever you say in answer to our question, we shall reply by attempting to demonstrate that such things have not been said correctly concerning all men or concerning us.
For let it be for you first to say that all men are compared to these base animals merely in relation to God, since their insignificance in no way bears comparison with the excellence of God. But what insignificance B is it? Answer me, O sirs. For if it is the insignificance of bodies, hear that what is excellent and proper, as measured by truth, is not judged by the body. For by this standard, griffins and elephants would be superior to us men; for they are larger, stronger, and longer-lived than we are. But no one of sound mind would say that these irrational beings are better than rational ones on account of their bodies. For reason raises the rational being far above all irrational things in excellence. Nor even those noble and blessed natures, whether—as you say—the good demons, or, as it is our custom to call them, the angels of God, or any other natures whatsoever that are superior to men, would say this, since the rational principle in them is perfected and adorned with every virtue.
But if you disparage the insignificance of man not because of the body, but because of the soul, as being inferior to the rest of the rational beings, and especially to the holy ones, and therefore inferior because vice is in it: why are those who are wicked among Christians, and those who live ill among the Jews, any more a flock of bats, or ants, or worms, or frogs, than those who are wicked among the other nations? Since, according to this, any one at all, especially one who is steeped in vice, should be a bat, a worm, a frog, or an ant compared to the rest of men. Even if some orator, Demosthenes, were to be found, with the same wickedness as that man and the deeds performed by him from such wickedness; or Antiphon, another orator...
C 25. But if you do not disparage man’s insignificance on account of his body, but on account of his soul, because it is inferior to other natures endowed with reason, and most especially to the holy ones, in that sins corrupt and take possession of it—why are those who are among the Christians wicked, or those who live ill among the Jews, rather a swarm of bats, or ants, or worms, or frogs, than those among any other of the nations who have given themselves up to vices? For if this is assumed, whoever has loosened the reins on his own passions, it would necessarily follow that he should be held as a bat, a worm, a frog, and an ant before all other men. Therefore, even if some other person were a Demosthenes in his power of speaking, but marked by the same wickedness and the same ill-favored deeds as he, even if some other one were… D
A one who was considered to be [a great orator], and who destroyed Providence in those books inscribed *On Truth*, in a title almost the same as that of Celsus—nonetheless, such people are worms wallowing in a corner of mud, of ignorance and folly. Yet, what reasonable person would not be right to say that a rational being, having the capacity for virtue, should not be compared to a worm? For these [(82)] sketches toward it do not allow those who possess the power for virtue, and who are not entirely able to destroy its seeds, to be compared to a worm. Thus, it is manifest that it is not the case that all men generally should be deemed on the level of worms before God. For Reason, having its beginning from the Word [(83)] that is with God, does not allow a rational animal to be deemed entirely alien to God; nor should the wicked among Christians and Jews—who, to speak truly, are neither Christians nor Jews—be any more compared to worms wallowing in a corner of mud than the wicked among other nations. If the nature of reason does not permit this kind of similarity to be admitted, then it is certainly not an injustice to be brought against human nature in regard to virtue, that it should be compared to such creatures, even if it sins through ignorance.
26. But if, because of the doctrines of Christians and Jews which do not please Celsus, and which he does not even seem to have understood from the beginning, these are worms and ants, while the rest are not such, come, let us examine whether the doctrines of Christians and Jews that are openly apparent to all C are not, when compared to the doctrines of the rest of humanity, going to make manifest to those who once accepted that some men are worms and ants, that worms and [alt-version omitted] D [a commentary fragment follows, intermixed with biographical notes on Antiphon] ...concerning those of the Georgic [writings]... (lib. x, cap. 6), in the *Against Alcibiades* (lib. xii, cap. 5), in the *On Agriculture* (lib. xiv, cap. 17); also in the book (lib. x, cap. 12): "Unless perhaps the author of the *Georgics* and the book *On Peacocks* was someone else, which I could easily believe," says Gesner in his *Bibliotheca*. But you would not have believed it so easily if you had read Athenaeus, lib. ix, cap. 12: "Antiphon the rhetor wrote an oration, the title of which is *On Peacocks*." Perhaps you might more correctly attribute *Plexippus* to another, whose tragedies Athenaeus mentions (lib. xv, cap. 4), speaking of Hephaestion, who ascribed to himself the works of others: "Certain things about Plexippus by Antiphon the tragic poet, and many other things about the same Antiphon, all these Hephaestion ascribes to himself. He also ascribes to himself in his *Commentaries* the book on the Antiphon of Xenophon." As if he of whom Xenophon makes mention in the first book of the *Memorabilia* were a different person from Antiphon the tragic poet. But Antiphon the rhetor did write tragedies: "It is said that he composed tragedies, both privately and with Dionysius the tyrant. And while he was still devoted to poetry, he devised an art for the removing of sorrow (Plutarch, *On the Ten Orators*)." Whence he is sometimes called a poet; as in Aristotle (lib. ii, cap. 6, *Rhetoric*): "Whence also Antiphon the poet, when he was about to be put to death by the rack by Dionysius, and saw those who were going to die with him covering their faces as they left the gates, said: 'Why are you covering yourselves? Is it so that one of these might not see you tomorrow?'" The same Antiphon is mentioned by Clement, *Stromata* i; Tully, in *Brutus*; Suidas, in *Antiphon*; Quintilian, *Institutio Oratoria*, lib. xii, cap. 10; Plato, in *Menexenus*; Stobaeus. The book *On Poets* is by some ascribed to the same Glaucus of Rhegium; Plutarch, *On the Ten Orators*. But nowhere, as far as I know, does the book occur in which, if you believe Origen, he attacked Providence. Certainly the fragments and pieces which Stobaeus cites here and there, and the orations which exist, do not convict him of the alleged crime; even the aforementioned authors are silent about atheism; but they accuse him of perfidy and cruelty. Plutarch, in *Demosthenes*: "He convicted him of having promised Philip he would burn the shipyards." Philostratus, lib. *On the Lives of the Sophists*: "He is justly to be considered as a bad man, because he himself dissolved the democracy of the Athenians and reduced the people into slavery."
A for ants and for frogs, as having lost a sound opinion about God, and being deluded by a vain image of piety, either worship irrational animals, or statues, or other notable things of this world, by whose beauty they ought only to have been led to admire and worship the Maker; but those are men, and if there be anything more excellent than men, who, having followed reason as their guide, have been able to raise themselves from stones and wood, from gold and silver held in higher esteem, and from things of this world however goodly, to the Creator of all things; who have committed themselves wholly to Him; who, because they hold it for certain that He alone can suffice for all, perceive the thoughts of all, and hear the prayers of all, direct their prayers to Him, do all things as if He were inspecting them, and take heed, as if He were hearing them, that nothing may escape them which could displease Him. Will this so great piety, which is not weakened by labors, nor by dangers of death, nor by captious conclusions of arguments, profit them nothing, so that they must henceforth be compared with worms, even if they could be compared previously? What of those who restrain the most vehement lust of obscene pleasure, which enervates and softens the spirits, for this reason—that they are persuaded that they cannot attain to the intimacy of God unless they have striven toward Him through temperance; do they seem to you to be the brothers of worms, to have kinship with ants, and to be like to frogs? What of Justice, that splendid virtue which toward a neighbor preserves the rights of society, equity, kindness, and humanity; will it not prevent him who is endowed with it from being reduced to the rank of bats? On the other hand, do not those who engulf themselves in flagitious lusts, as do most men, who approach every available woman of common body without any shame, who teach that these things are not flagitious, act as worms wallowing in mud? Especially if they are compared to those who have been taught not to B "take the members of Christ and the body in which the Word dwells, and make them the members of a harlot"; and who have learned that the body, in which the nature is participant of reason, is "consecrated to the God of the universe," and that it is the "temple" of the God whom they adore, and that it becomes the temple of God when there is a right understanding concerning the Creator; who, finally, shuddering to pollute the "temple of God" with illicit pleasure, deem it to be the practice of their religion to cultivate temperance. C
27. Furthermore, I pass over other crimes that flourish among men, from which perhaps not even those who profess philosophy are immune: for there are many whom philosophy does not recognize as her genuine disciples. I am silent also about the many crimes of this kind found among those who are neither Jews nor Christians. However, I maintain that these things do not exist among Christians, if one should strictly examine who the Christian is; or if such a one were found, he is not at any rate among those who are considered to be D of the body ordered by the Word.
A We are not, therefore, worms forming a B congregation, we who fight against the Jews from the scriptures which they believe to be sacred, and show that he who was foretold has arrived, and that they have been forsaken on account of their greatest sins; but we who have received the Word have placed our best hopes in God, relying on our faith in him and on the manner of life which can lead us to intimacy with him, purified from all wickedness and vice. No one, therefore, of those who profess themselves to be Jews or Christians should simply say: God has created the whole world and the heavenly array chiefly for our sake; but if anyone, as Jesus taught, is pure in heart, and meek, and a peacemaker, and willingly enduring dangers for the sake of piety, such a one could rightly trust in God and say, if indeed he understands the prophecies: "God has foreknown and announced all these things to us who believe."
28. Since Celsus also attributes these words to the Christians, whom he considers to be worms: "To us alone, having abandoned the whole world and the heavenly course, and having neglected all this earth which lies broad before us, God provides and watches; to us he sends heralds, nor does he cease to send them, anxious as to how we might be joined to him eternally;" it must be said here that he attributes to us things that never entered our minds. For we read and know that God loves all things that are, and hates nothing of those which he has made; for he would not have created anything that he hated. We have also read this: "But you spare all, because all things are yours, O lover of souls. For your incorruptible spirit is in all; therefore you correct by little and little those who fall, and admonish and instruct them concerning the things wherein they sin." How then could we say that the course of the heavens and the whole world is abandoned by God, and that he has neglected such vast spaces of earth, and provides and takes thought for us alone? We who know in our prayers that it should be said and thought that "the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord," and that "the mercy of the Lord is upon all flesh," and that God being good "makes his sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and rains upon the just and the unjust," and who encourages us, if indeed we wish to be his sons, to follow his examples, and teaches us to embrace all men with kindness as far as we are able. For he himself is called "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe," and his Christ is "the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." And these things, indeed, in reply to what Celsus has written. C But some of the Jews might say other private things, yet these indeed in reply to what... D
Celsus has written do not at all fit the Christians; since these things were said to them: "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." But scarcely for a righteous man will one die: for peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. Now, however, it is proclaimed that Jesus—whom we also call the Christ of God, following the custom of speaking of our own Scriptures—has come for all sinners B wherever they may be, that, laying aside sin, they may themselves believe in God.
But perhaps Celsus has over-heard some [saying] that "God is, and then after him we," whom he called worms. And he does the same as those who blame a whole school of philosophy because of certain things said by a headstrong youth who had been a student of a philosopher for three days, and who, on that account, was arrogant toward the rest as being inferior and unphilosophical. For we know that there are many things more honorable than man; and we have read that "God stood in the congregation of the gods,"—but not the gods who are worshipped C by the rest; "for all the gods of the nations are demons." And we have read that "God, standing in the congregation of gods, judgeth among the gods." But we also know that, "though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many), but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." And we know also that the angels are so much greater than men that men, when they have been perfected, become like the angels; "for in the resurrection from the dead they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but they are as the angels of God in heaven," and they become like the angels. And we know D that in the order of the universe there are certain ones called thrones, and others dominions, and others powers, and others principalities; and we see that we men, although far behind these, have the hope, from living well and doing all things according to reason, of ascending to the likeness of all these. And finally, since "it doth not yet appear what we shall be; [but] we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like God; for we shall see him as he is." But if anyone, hearing what is said by some—whether those who understand or those who do not understand, but have misheard sound doctrine—should say that "God is first of all, and we occupy the place after him," I would interpret this "we," saying it stands for "the rational beings," and even more [specifically], "the perfect, rational beings." For with us the virtue is the same for all the blessed, such that the virtue itself is the same for both man and God. Wherefore "become" [perfect], even if it be on account of the greatest sins: for we do not, like the Stoics, say that the virtue of man and God is in every way godless.
It seems to me that Celsus has also misheard that passage, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," and because of this has made the "worms" say that, "having been made by God, we are in every way like Him." If, however, he had known the difference between man being made "in the image of God" and "after the likeness," and that it is written that God said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," but [if] God made man "in the image of God," and not at that time "after the likeness," he would not have made us say that "we are in every way like unto God."
Nor do we say that even the stars are subject to us; since the so-called resurrection of the just, understood by the wise, is compared to the sun, the moon, and the stars by him who says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead," and by Daniel, who prophesied of these things long ago. Celsus alleges that we say "all things have been ordered to serve us." Perhaps he has never heard any of the wise men among us say such things; or perhaps he does not know how it is said that he who is greatest B among us is to be the servant of all.
And if the Greeks say: "Then the sun and night serve mortals,"
[The Sun and Night serve mortals]
they praise the statement and illustrate it with commentaries; but when such a thing is either not said by us, or is said otherwise, Celsus slanders us even for these things. We were saying among Celsus’s "worms," as he calls us, that "Since there are some among us who defile themselves with sins, God will come, or will send His Son, that He may burn up the ungodly, and we, the rest, the 'frogs,' may with him enjoy eternal life." And see how C like a buffoon he mocks, ridicules, and hisses at the proclamation concerning divine judgment, and the punishment of the ungodly and the rewards of the just. A serious philosopher indeed!D Finally he concludes: "And that statement of theirs is very bold; for they said that the virtue of man and God is the same."
[Regarding the Sun and Night serving mortals]
The dark eyelid of night and the light of the sun, He ordained to traverse the annual circle equally, And neither of these two, overcome by envy, Envies the triumph of the other; So the sun and night serve men, But you will not endure to have an equal share, And to grant to him his share of the kingdom?
A more endurable is this, if it were said among worms and frogs, than when it is proclaimed among Jews and Christians who are at variance with one another. But we shall not imitate him, nor shall we say anything similar regarding the philosophers who boast that the nature of all things is fully explored by them, and who discuss among themselves how all things were created, how heaven and earth were made, and all that is within them; and whether souls, being unbegotten [(1)] and not created by God, are governed by Him and migrate from body to body; or whether, being sown together with the bodies, they persist or do not persist. For one could, instead of speaking solemnly and accepting the purpose of those who have dedicated themselves to the examination of the truth, also mock and speak ill, saying that these are worms in a corner of the mire of human life, not gauging themselves, and for this reason B making pronouncements about such great things as if they had grasped them; and that they speak as if they had contemplated matters which cannot be seen without the inspiration of a superior and more divine power. "For no one among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him; so also no one has known the things of God, except the Spirit of God." But we are not so mad, nor do we compare to the movements of worms or any other such creatures the understanding of men of such caliber (I use the word "understanding" in the common sense) which, having busied itself not with the things of the crowd, but with the examination of the truth, is engaged in this quest. Nay, rather, we sincerely bear witness to certain Greek philosophers that they came to know God, "because God manifested it to them," C even if they "did not glorify Him as God, nor gave thanks, but became futile in their thoughts. And claiming to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed animals, and of creeping things."
After this, wishing to maintain that Jews and Christians resemble none of the animals he previously mentioned, he says, "That the Jews were runaway slaves who came out of Egypt, having never done anything worthy of note, and never having been significant either in name or in number." Regarding the fact that they were not runaways, nor Egyptians, but Hebrews who had resided in Egypt, we have already spoken in the preceding pages. But if he thinks that their not having been significant in name or in number is proven by the fact that the history of them is not very frequently mentioned D by Greek writers, he shall be refuted. For if one were to examine their form of government established from the beginning, and the arrangement of their laws, he would find that they were men who represented a heavenly life on earth, who recognized none other than the Most High God, and who banished all makers of images. For no painter or sculptor exists in their polity.
A For the Law had banished all such persons from it, so that there might be no occasion for the construction of images, which draws the foolish among men toward itself, and drags down the eyes of the soul from God to the earth. There was, therefore, among them a law such as this: "You shall not commit iniquity, and you shall not make for yourselves any carved likeness, image, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies under heaven, the likeness of any reptile that creeps on the earth, the likeness of any fish, whatever is in the waters under the earth." And the Law indeed intended that, by keeping to the truth regarding each thing, they should not invent other things contrary to the truth—things that would lie about what the male, or the female, or the beast, or the bird, or the reptile kind, or the fish really was. B Also illustrious and magnificent among them was this: "Lest, lifting up your eyes to heaven, and seeing the sun and the moon and the stars, and all the host of heaven, you be led astray, and worship them, and serve them." What kind of polity was that of the whole nation, among whom it was not even permissible for a effeminate person to appear! And it is also a wonderful thing that harlots, those incitements to youthful lusts, were forbidden from their polity. The most just of all men presided over their courts, those who had over a long time provided proofs of an upright life. Because they were of a character above the human level, they were called gods by the ancestral custom of the Jews. It was possible to see an entire nation devoted to the study of wisdom. C And because of the leisure for hearing the divine laws, what are called Sabbaths, and the rest of the feasts among them, came into being. And what need is there to speak concerning the order of priests among them and the sacrifices, which contained myriad symbols, made clear to those who are lovers of learning? But since nothing is stable in human nature, it was necessary that that polity, gradually decaying from its first constitution, should fall away. But Providence, having fitfully transformed the dignity of their reason to suit those everywhere who are in need of transformation, handed down to those who believe from among all men everywhere the holy piety according to Jesus. D For He, endowed not only with wisdom but also a partaker of the divinity, utterly overturned the religion of the earthly demons, who, while taking delight in the smoke of incense, blood, and the odors of fat, were dragging men away from the knowledge of God, like the Titans or Giants whom the myths celebrate; and He, fearless of the snares which they contrive against the very best, laid down laws, wherefore He drove out from the polity established by Him those celebrated and elegant arts, painting and statuary, because, while lying about the nature of the truth, they manufacture deceits and sophistries through the eyes for souls easily led astray.
A To those who obey these laws, happiness will follow. Nor is there any need now to soothe the demons with sacrifices. Nay, they hold them in contempt, relying on the help through which the Word of God assists those who lift their eyes upward to God. And because it was the will of God that the doctrine of Jesus should prevail among men, all the efforts of the demons were rendered vain, although they set in motion every device to ensure that there should be no more Christians. For they incited the kings, and the senate, and the rulers everywhere, and even the common people themselves—who did not perceive the irrational and wicked activity of the demons—against the Word and those who believe in it. But the Word of God, more powerful than all, even when hindered, took, as it were, food for growth from the hindering itself, and, advancing, it occupied more souls; for God willed this. B Although these things have been said by us by way of digression, I consider them necessary. For we wished to reply to what Celsus said about the Jews, namely, that "they were runaway slaves from Egypt," and that "the people who are dear to God have never achieved anything worthy of note." And against the claim that "they were neither in discourse nor in number of any account," we reply that, as "a chosen race and a royal priesthood," withdrawing and avoiding social intercourse with the multitude, so as not to have their morals corrupted, they were kept safe by the protection of the divine power; neither desiring, as most men do, to bring other kingdoms under their own control, nor being left alone, so that because of their small numbers they might easily fall prey to plots, and for the same reason be utterly destroyed. C And this continued as long as they remained worthy of the protection from God. But when it was necessary that the whole people, having fallen into sin, should be brought back to their own God through sufferings, then, sometimes for a shorter and sometimes for a longer time, they were left without the protection of God, until at length, under the Romans, having committed the greatest sin by killing Jesus, they were totally abandoned.
33. Following these things, Celsus, making an incursion into the first book of Moses, which is inscribed Genesis, says that "they undertook to trace their origin back to the first imposter and deceivers of men, adducing obscure, ambiguous, and dark sayings as testimony, which they explain to the ignorant and foolish; although concerning such a matter there has been no controversy for many centuries." D He seems to me to have expressed his intention very obscurely here. I think he purposely sought out subterfuges, because he saw with what strong arguments the origin of the Jews from those first ancestors is supported. Nevertheless, he did not wish to appear ignorant of those things which are told about the Jews and their origin, and which are worth knowing. And indeed it is manifest that the Jews are sprung from those three fathers, Abraham, Isaac and...
A Jacob: whose names, when conjoined with the name of God, have such power that not only the Jewish race in its prayers to God and in the adjuration of demons uses this: "God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob," but also almost all those who busy themselves with incantations and magical arts. For in magical books, such an invocation of God and the taking up of the name of God, as being familiar to these men for the purpose of acting against demons, is found in many places. This, therefore, in my opinion, which is brought forward by Jews and Christians as proof that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Jewish nation, were certain holy men, Celsus has not altogether ignored, yet he has not clearly set it forth, since he was unable to answer the argument.
34. For we ask all those who use such invocations of God: B Tell us, sirs, who is this Abraham, and how great is Isaac, and of what power was Jacob, so that the name "God" being adapted to their name is able to perform such great miracles? And from whom have you learned, or could you have learned, the things concerning these men? And who took it upon himself to record the history concerning them, either by clearly setting forth the men in secret [traditions], or by hinting through allegories at some things great and miraculous to those capable of observing them? And then, when upon our asking, no one is able to produce from any history whatsoever, whether Greek or barbarian, or—if not history—some secret writing, the things concerning these men, we shall bring forward the book inscribed "Genesis," containing the deeds of these men, and the oracles of God to them, and we shall say: that perhaps the very fact that the names of these three patriarchs of the nation are taken up by you, and are seen to be not worthy of contempt by reason of their invocation, demonstrates the divinity of these men, who understood [God] by His manifest power.
These we receive from nowhere else but the sacred books of the Jews. For A indeed, God is often called "the God of Israel," and "the God of the Hebrews," and "the God who drowned the King of the Egyptians and the Egyptians in the Red Sea," and is invoked against demons or certain wicked powers. We learn the history concerning these names and the interpretation of the names from the Hebrews, who honor and explain these things in their native characters and in their native language. How then can the Jews, having undertaken to trace their own lineage from these first men—whom it pleased Celsus to call impostors and wanderers—shamelessly attempt to trace themselves and their own origin back to these men? The fact that their names are Hebrew, and that their sacred books are written in the Hebrew language and script, testifies to the Hebrews that this nation belongs to these men. For even to this day, the Jewish names, being attached to the Hebrew language, were either taken from their letters or simply from the things signified by the Hebrew tongue.
And observe, you who read Celsus's writing, whether these words of his do not hint at this: "And they undertook to trace their lineage from a primary seed of impostors and wandering men, bringing forward in testimony obscure and ambiguous voices, somewhere hidden in the dark." For these names are indeed hidden, and not in the light and in the knowledge of many; to us, however, they are not ambiguous, even though they may be used by those who are strangers to our piety. But according to Celsus, B who does not demonstrate the ambiguity of the sounds, I know not how they are cast aside. And yet, if he wished to refute honestly the genealogy which he most impudently assumed the Jews lay claim to regarding Abraham and his descendants, he should have set out clearly all the facts of the matter, and first have argued in favor of the probability he imagined, and after that, with the truth that appeared to him, and with arguments on its behalf, have bravely refuted the facts of the matter. But neither Celsus nor anyone else will be able, in discussing the nature of the names that are used for [the sake of] powers, to set forth the precise argument concerning them, and to convict these men—whose names alone have great power not only among their own people but also among foreigners—of being contemptible. He ought to have shown how we, misinterpreting the things regarding these names to the ignorant and foolish, deceive those who listen—as he believes—while he himself, who boasts of being neither ignorant nor foolish, should provide the true interpretation concerning them. He has merely cast aside, in regard to those names from which the Jews trace their lineage, the claim that D "there has never, in the long time past, been any controversy concerning such names; but now the Jews [dispute] against certain others," whom [he] did not name.
Let him show who these claimants are, and even if they use probability, against the Jews, regarding the fact that the Jews and Christians do not correctly report the matters concerning these [names], against which the names are laid down; and that others are those who have reasoned most wisely and truly concerning them. But we are persuaded that some will not be able to do such a thing, as it is self-evident that the names are derived from the Hebrew language, which is found only among the Jews.
36. After this, Celsus, setting forth stories from outside the divine word, concerning men of antiquity who claimed [prominence], such as the Athenians and Egyptians, and Arcadians, and Phrygians, and others who claimed that there were some earth-born men among them, and providing arguments for each of these, says B that "the Jews, huddled together somewhere in a corner of Palestine, and being utter ignoramuses, who never heard that these things had long since been sung by Hesiod and countless other men divinely inspired, fabricated these most incredible and most unrefined stories: that a certain man was fashioned by the hands of God and breathed into, and a woman [was taken] from his side; and that God gave commandments, and a serpent opposed these; and that God was overcome by the serpent. They tell an old wives' tale, impiously introducing God as being, from the very beginning, so weak that He could not persuade even one man whom He had fashioned." Through these remarks, indeed, this man of much learning and deep knowledge—Celsus, who charges the Jews and Christians with ignorance and lack of education—clearly C reveals how accurately he knew the times of each writer, Greek and barbarian. For he thinks that Hesiod and countless others, whom he names as men divinely inspired, are older than Moses and his writings; Moses, I say, whom it is established was older than the Trojan war. It is not, then, the Jews who fabricated those most incredible and most unrefined stories concerning the earth-born man; but those men who, according to Celsus, were divinely inspired—Hesiod and his other countless ones—who, having neither learned nor even heard of those most profound and much older histories popular in Palestine, invented such stories about ancient things, such as divine genealogies D and births, attributing also ten thousand other things to the gods, as far as they were concerned. Plato rightly expels them from his own republic, as—
"Therefore, we will not admit," he says, "either Homer or any other poet, [who errs] so foolishly in his account of the gods. 'Unquenchable laughter arose among the blessed gods, As they saw Hephaestus bustling through the house.'"
Is there anything more delightful than the poetry of Homer? Or anything sweeter than that beautiful diction? Nevertheless, the best of the philosophers (you surely recognize the son of Ariston, as I suppose), having anointed him with myrrh, as women do with swallows, sent him away from the city which he had founded, having called [him] a corrupter...
of youth and a teacher of impiety. For, he says, he teaches the young to blaspheme, and sets forth before them evil opinions concerning the gods, and instills evil and corrupted lessons into those who are still tender. For all the good poets of epic verse do not speak all these noble poems out of craft, but because they are inspired and possessed.
A It is manifest that Plato did not think that those who had left behind such poems had become inspired men. But the Epicurean Celsus (if indeed he it is who also composed two other books against the Christians), who is better able to judge than Plato, perhaps, out of contentiousness against us, has called those "inspired," whom he did not think were inspired.
He finds fault with us, saying that we introduce "man as being fashioned by the hands of God"; [he claims] that the book of Genesis has taken up [the idea of] the hands of God neither in the making nor in the fashioning of man; but [that] Job and David have said: "Thy hands have made me and fashioned me." Regarding these [passages], there is much to be said in order to set forth the things understood by those who have said these things, not only concerning the difference between making and fashioning, but also concerning the hands of God. Those who have not understood these, and such expressions from the divine Scriptures, think that we attribute to the God over all a form such as the human one; according to whom it would also be consistent to think that we hold that there are wings in the body of God, since the Scriptures written according to the letter regarding our God say these things also. But the present treatise does not require us to interpret these things now; for these matters have been examined by us as far as possible, primarily, in the commentaries on Genesis.
Then observe the malignity of Celsus in what follows. For while our Scripture says concerning the formation of man, "And He breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul," he, wishing maliciously to mock [it], wrote down: "He breathed into his face the breath of life" (which he does not even understand in what manner it is said), [writing] that "they fashioned man as being formed by the hands of God," so that someone, thinking that what was breathed in was said [in a way] similar to things breathed into wineskins, might laugh at the [phrase], "He breathed into his face the breath of life," which is spoken figuratively and requires an explanation, which proves that man was made by God to be a participant in an incorruptible spirit; concerning which it is said, "But thy incorruptible spirit is in all things."
Then, since it was his proposed aim to malign the things that were written, he also mocked the [phrase], "God cast—" B C D
A a deep sleep upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and filled up the flesh instead thereof. And He built the rib, which He had taken from Adam, into a woman, etc. He does not even set forth the words, which are of such a nature that the hearer cannot but understand that they were spoken with a figurative meaning. Nor did he wish to pretend that such things are to be allegorized; although, in the following sections, he says that "those among the Jews and Christians who are more modest, being ashamed of these things, attempt to allegorize them in one way or another." To whom I say: Must the fable that your Hesiod, a man inspired by God, invented about the woman whom Jupiter gave to men as an evil, and by which he would avenge the stolen fire, be accepted in an allegorical sense—while that which is recorded about the woman taken from the rib of him who had been lulled into a deep sleep and built by God, seems to you to contain no deeper meaning? Yet, what kind of candor is it not to laugh at those [Hesiodic] things as trifles, but to admire them as a philosophical mystery veiled in fable, while at the same time mocking these [Scriptural] things by fixing the mind only upon the bare letter, and believing that they contain no underlying sense? For if one ought to condemn what is said in hidden meanings merely on account of the naked words, see whether the things of Hesiod—a man, as you say, inspired by God—do not rather deserve ridicule for having written such things:
B The cloud-gathering Zeus, being angered, spoke to him thus: Son of Iapetus, who excellest all in craft, Thou art glad that thou hast stolen fire and deceived my mind, But it shall be a great bane to thee and to men to come. To them I will give an evil in exchange for fire, in which all Shall delight their hearts, embracing their own evil. Thus he spoke, and the father of men and gods laughed. And he bade renowned Hephaestus with all speed Mix earth with water, and to put in it the voice and strength C of a human, and to give it a face like the immortal Virgin goddesses, beautiful and lovely. And he bade Athena Teach her works and to weave the finely-wrought web, And [bade] golden Aphrodite to shed grace upon her head, And painful longing, and cares that eat away at the heart. And he commanded Hermes, the messenger and slayer of Argus, To give her a shameless mind and deceitful ways. Thus he spoke; and they obeyed King Zeus, son of Cronus. Immediately the renowned Hephaestus fashioned from the earth A form resembling a modest virgin, according to the counsels of the son of Cronus; And the goddess, grey-eyed Athena, girded and adorned her. And the goddess Graces and queenly Persuasion D Placed golden necklaces about her flesh, and the fair-haired Hours crowned her with flowers of spring. Pallas Athena fitted to her body all the adornment; And within her breast, Hermes, the messenger and slayer of Argus, Placed lies and wily words and a deceitful character.
A Migne’s Latin rendering: "He fashioned [her], by the will of Jove the Thunderer; and in her A the herald of the gods placed a voice; and he named this woman Pandora, because all who possess the Olympian dwellings bestowed a gift upon her, which would be a ruin to laborious men."
It is no less ridiculous what he adds concerning the jar: "For before this, the tribes of men lived upon the earth Free from evils and free from difficult labor, And from grievous diseases, which have brought old age upon men. But the woman, having removed with her hands the great lid of the jar, Scattered them, and devised woeful troubles for men. Only Hope remained there within in her unbreakable home, Under the rims of the jar, and did not fly out abroad; For she had previously put the lid back on the jar."
To him who expounds these things solemnly with allegory, whether he attains the mind of the writer or not, we shall say thus: Is it allowed only to the Greeks to practice philosophy through hidden meaning? Shall the same license be granted to the Egyptians, and to those of the barbarians who boast that they possess truth hidden by mysteries; B but do you think that the Jews alone, and their lawgiver, and their writers, are the most stupid of all men? B And that this nation alone has partaken of no power of God, it which has been so nobly taught to ascend to the unbegotten nature of God, to look to Him alone, and to expect hopes from Him alone?
Since Celsus also mocks—as if it were something contradictory to the commandments of God given to man—the matters concerning the serpent, C assuming the story to be a myth similar to those handed down in the Scriptures, C and deliberately has not named the paradise of God, nor how it is said that God planted [a garden] in Eden toward the east, and that after this He caused to sprout from the earth every tree beautiful to the sight and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the paradise, 45 and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the things mentioned after these, which are able of themselves to stir the one who reads them with a favorable mind [to realize] that all these are not indecorously interpreted allegorically—come, let us compare with this the things said in Plato's *Symposium* to Socrates concerning Eros, and how they were assigned to Socrates as more solemn than all the things said by the others in the *Symposium* concerning him 46. And this is how Plato’s passage goes: "When Venus was born, the gods were feasting, and others among them were present, as well as Porus, the son of Metis 47. After they had dined, Penia, knowing that there was a feast, came begging, and was at the doors. Then Porus, being drunk with nectar (for there was not yet any wine [*]), having entered into the garden of Jove, went to sleep, weighed down. Then Penia, plotting D because of her own poverty to have a child from Porus, lies down beside him, D and conceived Cupid. Since, therefore, he was born on the natal day of Venus,
And thus Cupid became the attendant and servant of Venus, A having been born at her birthday feast; and at the same time, by nature, he is a lover of what is beautiful, since Venus herself is beautiful. Being, therefore, the son of Porus and Penia, Cupid is established in such a state. First, he is always poor, and far from being delicate and beautiful, as many think; rather, he is withered, squalid, barefoot, homeless, always sleeping on the ground, without bedding, at doors and in streets, under the open sky; having the nature of his mother, he is always a neighbor to need. But on the side of his father, he is intriguing against the beautiful and the good, being courageous, impetuous, and energetic; a clever hunter, always weaving schemes; B both a seeker of wisdom and resourceful; a philosopher through his whole life; a cunning enchanter, a druggist, and a sophist. And he is by nature neither immortal nor mortal; but on the same day he now flourishes and lives, when he has abundance, and now he dies again, and again comes back to life, due to the nature of his father. But that which is acquired always escapes him, so that Cupid is never in want, nor does he possess wealth. He is, moreover, in the middle between wisdom and ignorance.
"Whoever encounters these things, if they should imitate the malice of Celsus—which may it be far from Christians—will laugh at the fable and receive Plato, that great man, with mockery. But if, in a manner befitting philosophers, they C were to examine these things told in the form of a fable, and were able to find the intention of Plato, [they would see] in what way he was able to hide the great doctrines that appeared to him—for the sake of the many, in the form of a fable—and yet, as was fitting, to make them clear to those who knew how to look through fables at the intention of the author concerning truth."
I have brought forward this fable of Plato because the garden of Jove, of which he speaks, does not seem to differ much from the paradise of God, nor Penia from the serpent, nor Porus, sought after by Penia through intrigue, from man, who was circumvented by the intrigues of the serpent. It is not, however, entirely certain whether these things occurred to Plato by chance, or, as some think, whether, while he was traveling in Egypt, he encountered certain students of the mysteries D of the Jews and learned something from them—retaining some things, while disguising others in figures, for fear of offending the Greeks if he were to preserve the wisdom of the Jews in its entirety; for among the many they were ill-spoken of, both on account of laws different from others and their peculiar form of government.
But now is not the time to discourse either on Plato's fable, or on the serpent, or on the paradise of God, or on all that is recorded to have happened therein. For I have already explained these matters, as diligently as I could, in my commentaries on Genesis.
40. But when he asserts that "it is most impious to represent God as being weak from the very beginning, so that not even..."
A a human being—whom he himself had fashioned—could be persuaded, the word of Moses introduces this. To this we shall reply that what is said is similar to someone complaining about the existence of evil, which God could not prevent even in one single person, so that he might have found at least one human being from the beginning who was untainted by evil. For just as those who care to defend Providence do not do so with few or insignificant arguments, B so too, those who know that in the Greek tongue 55 "Adam" signifies "a human being," will philosophize about Adam and his sin, and realize that in what Moses seems to say about Adam, he is describing human nature. For indeed, "in Adam" (as the Word says) "all die" [I Cor. xv, 22] and were "condemned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam" [Rom. v, 15]; in this way, the divine Scripture speaks not so much about one particular man, but about the whole race. For one can see, in the series of things 95 which are said as if of one, C that the curse is not applied merely to one man, and neither to one human being, being untainted from the beginning. And likewise untainted. In Hebrew, since Adam sinned and subjected the race to death, he made the whole of nature liable to the debt. "And we know that he did not come to the river as if in need of baptism, or of the Spirit who descended in the form of a dove; just as he did not submit to being born and crucified because he was in need of these things, but for the sake of the human race, D which had fallen through Adam into death and the deception of the serpent, while setting aside the individual fault of each one of them who had acted wickedly. 'No one is clean from filth,' says Job, 'not even if his life is but one day long.' Let them tell us, where did the newborn child commit fornication? Or how has it fallen under the curse of Adam, having performed no act? It remains for them, as it seems, consistently to say that birth itself is evil; and not only the birth of the body, but also that of the soul, on account of which there is also the body. And when David saith: 'In iniquities I was conceived, and in sins did my mother bring me forth,' he speaks prophetically of Eve as the mother. But Eve became the mother of the living; and if he was conceived in sins, yet he himself was not in sin, nor was he sin himself."
A Adam is common to all; and what is said regarding the woman is not said of one person only. And the man who is cast out of paradise together with the woman, having put on the garments of skin (which God made for those who had sinned, because of the transgression of men), holds a certain hidden and mystical meaning, superior to that which Plato relates B concerning the soul that has lost its wings and falls to this place, until it finds something solid where it may take its stand.
41. Following this, he says such things as these: "Then they thrust upon us a certain deluge, and a strange ark, containing everything within it, and a certain dove and raven performing the duty of messengers—in which matter they do nothing but interpolate and corrupt the history of Deucalion. For they did not suppose, I think, that these things would come to light, but simply told stories to childish children." B And here, observe the man's unphilosophical aversion toward the most ancient Scripture of the Jews. For he has nothing to say against the history of the deluge; nor was he able to focus on what he could criticize regarding the ark and its measurements. And not as was possible, according to the mind of the many, taking the account of the three hundred cubits of the length of the ark, and fifty of breadth, and thirty of height, to assert that it contained the animals on the earth—fourteen clean C and four unclean—he simply said it was "a strange thing, having everything within." For what is the [absurdity] of its having been reported to have been made in a hundred years, and being gathered from the three hundred cubits of length, and fifty of width, until, should the thirty cubits of height end in a single cubit of length and width? Why was the structure not rather to be wondered at, like a great city?
...resulting in them saying that birth is evil, not only birth of the body, but also of the soul, on account of which the body also is. And when David said, "In sins I was conceived, and in iniquities did my mother conceive me," he speaks prophetically indeed of mother Eve; but Eve was the mother of all living; and if he was conceived in sins, he himself was not in sin, nor was he himself sin. This and other passages which we have already cited, everyone is accustomed to distort as it seems good to them. Similar, not to say more abundant, testimonies occur in other Fathers, both Greek and Latin, which we omit for the sake of brevity. D SPENCER. Consult also the most illustrious Huet, in his *Origeniana*, book II, question 7, number 24, where he investigates Origen's dogma concerning original sin.
(57) "Not of one person only": It seems it should be read "is not of one person only." But I would not wish anything changed. For it is the same as if it were said "is not of one person only," it is said of all.
(58) "Losing its wings": Read "losing its feathers." I admit, it occurs more than once in Plato, as on pages 251, 255; but the passage to which Origen referred, as he warned it should be corrected, page 246: "Every soul takes care of everything inanimate; and it perambulates all heaven, at different times becoming in different forms. When, therefore, it is perfect and winged, it flies aloft and governs the whole world; but the one that has lost its wings is carried until it takes hold of something solid; having found a dwelling place, it assumes an earthly body, and it seems to move it itself because of its power, and the whole is called a living being, soul and body joined, and it has the name mortal. But when, having become unable to follow, it does not see, and having met with some misfortune, filled with forgetfulness and vice, it becomes heavy; and being heavy, it loses its feathers and falls upon the earth, etc." SPENCER. Spencer may confirm his reading from Plato by Origen, book VI, numbers 43 and 44. Moreover, after the word "books," the editions have "Plato," which Boherellus rightly deletes, as it disturbed the sequence of the discourse.
(59) "And not as was possible": It seems it should be "and not how it was possible."
(60) "In the margin": fourteen.
(61) "Having everything within": See Origen on the second book of Genesis.
A is it like a city? For here the discourse is about the measurements according to their power: so that the base may have been ninety thousand cubits long, and two thousand five hundred cubits wide. And how is it not worthy of admiration that it was so firmly constructed that it was in no way damaged by the storms that brought about the flood? For it had not been coated with pitch or any other such material, but had been firmly smeared with bitumen. And is not this also worthy of admiration, that there was introduced by the providence of God the seminary of all animals, so that the earth might again possess the entire genus of them; and that God employed the most righteous man, who was to be the parent of all those who were to be born after the flood?
42. Celsus next finds fault with the story of the dove, so that he may seem to have read the book of Genesis; yet he could not find anything to say to expose as a fabrication the account regarding the dove. Then, as is his custom to turn our Scriptures into a game, he transforms the raven into a crow. He then thinks that Moses, who wrote these things, adulterated and depraved the Greek history of Deucalion; if, indeed, he believes Moses to have been the writer of these things, and not rather several others. For his words indicate this: "In which matter they do nothing but deprave and interpolate the history of Deucalion"; and these: "For they did not think, I suppose, that these things would come to light." But how did they not think that they would come to light, they who gave their scriptures to the whole nation, and who predicted that the same religion would be announced to all the Gentiles? And that word of Jesus to the Jews: “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and will be given to a nation producing its fruits,” what else does it signify than that the Jewish Scriptures, which contained the mysteries of the kingdom of God, were to be brought into the light by Him through divine power? Naturally, when they read the genealogy of the gods concocted by the Greeks and the histories of the twelve gods, they gain respect for them through allegories; but when it suits them to mock our matters, they say they are fables told without any art to mere children.
D "A most absurd and untimely procreation of children," he says; and even if he did not name them, it is clear that he is speaking of Abraham and Sarah. In attacking "the plots of brothers," he looks either to Cain plotting against Abel, or to Esau plotting against Jacob; by "the father's grief," he perhaps indicates the grief of Isaac over Jacob's journey abroad, or perhaps he signifies the grief of Jacob on account of Joseph having been sold into Egypt. And by "mothers' plots" I think he indicates Rebecca, who managed things so that the blessings of Isaac would not fall upon Esau, but upon Jacob. If, however, we say that God interjected His own labor in all these things, what absurdity do we commit, when it is certain to us that His divinity never departs from them,
those who consistently adhere to Him by an honest life? A He even mocks the riches acquired by Jacob from Laban, being ignorant of what this refers to: "The sheep of Laban were ignoble, but those of Jacob were noble," and he says that God gave the sons donkeys, sheep, and camels. But he did not see that all these things happened to them by way of a figure, and were written for our sake, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. For our sake, I say, among whom various customs, having become noble, are governed by the Word of God and given as a possession to him who is figuratively called Jacob. For the things written about Laban and Jacob signified those who, from the Gentiles, have embraced faith in Christ.
B Being far removed from the intention of the recorded words, Celsus says that God also gave wells to the righteous. For he did not observe that the righteous do not construct pits for themselves, but dig wells and look deep into the earth for the source of drinkable waters, inasmuch as they interpret this commandment figuratively: "Drink water from your own vessels, and from the fountain of your wells; let not your waters overflow from your fountain, but let your waters be channeled into your streets. Have them for yourself alone, and let no stranger be a participant with you." Scripture often uses true histories so that it may signify matters of greater importance and of a deeper design. Of such a kind are the things recorded about wells, about marriages, and about the various unions of the righteous; all of which he who will compose commentaries on those matters will explain more opportunely. C And that wells were constructed by the righteous in the land of the Philistines, as it is written in Genesis, is clear from the marvelous wells shown in Ascalon, which are worthy of mention on account of the unusual and unique form of their construction compared to other wells. That what concerns legal wives and handmaids must also be accepted in a tropological sense is not our invention, but is taught by the wise men who were before us. One of them, rousing his auditor to tropologies, speaks thus: "Tell me, you who read the law, do you not understand the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the maidservant and one by the free woman; but he who was of the maidservant was born according to the flesh, while he who was of the free woman was born through the promise; which things are spoken by way of allegory: for these are the two testaments. One indeed from Mount Sinai, bearing children into slavery, which is Hagar." D And a little later: "But the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother." Whoever wishes to take into his hands the Epistle to the Galatians will know in what manner those things concerning the legitimate wives and handmaids, which Scripture narrates, are to be explained by way of allegory, which [is what] the corporeal [text] appears to be.
A
45. Celsus, moreover, should have embraced the truthfulness of those who recorded the divine Scriptures, who did not even hide things that were offensive, and should have been led to believe that the rest of the more paradoxical events were not fabrications; yet he does the contrary. And as for what is reported concerning Lot and his daughters, having examined it neither according to the literal nor the spiritual sense, he pronounces it "more atrocious than the crimes of Thyestes." But there is no need now to say what this history teaches when received in a tropological sense; nor what Sodom is, nor what the word of the angels was to him who was saved from there, saying: B "Look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed"; nor who Lot is, nor who his wife is, who became a pillar of salt because she turned back; nor who his daughters are, who made their father drunken, so that they might become mothers by him. Come, let us mitigate in a few words the offensiveness regarding the history. Even the Greeks inquired into the nature of things good, evil, and indifferent; and those of them who were more successful held that goods and evils are situated in the intention alone, but that all things which are considered apart from intention are, according to their own logic, "indifferent"—and that intention, when it makes right use of these things, is worthy of praise, but when not, is blameworthy. Therefore, they said in the treatise on indifferent things that, by their own logic, lying with one's daughters is "indifferent," even if one ought not to do such a thing in established states. C And for the sake of an argument, to demonstrate that such a thing is indifferent, they have introduced the wise man, with the whole human race destroyed, left surviving with his daughter alone; and they inquire whether it would be permissible for the wise man to have intercourse with his daughter, so that the whole human race might not perish. Now, are these things spoken rightly among the Greeks, and does the school of the Stoics—which is not to be despised by them—advocate this? And when Lot and his daughters, having learned about the conflagration of the world but not having fully understood it, saw fire having overtaken their city and the region, and assumed that a seed of the human race had been left in the father and them, if they, moved by such an opinion, wished to repair the ruins of the world, D will they be worse than that wise man who, as the Stoics posit, could without any crime labor for children with his daughter while the world was perishing? I am not ignorant that some have been offended by the intention of Lot's daughters, and have supposed the act to be unholy, and have said that from such unholy mixtures were born the two execrated nations of the Moabites and the Ammonites. And in truth, divine Scripture neither openly...
accepts such a thing as having been done well, nor does it accuse or blame it. Nevertheless, however the event may stand, it is referred to a tropological sense, and in itself it also possesses a kind of defense. A Celsus also flings in “hatred,” I suppose, of Esau toward Jacob—a man admitted by Scripture to be wicked. And without clearly setting forth the matters concerning Simeon and Levi, who “avenged the outrage upon their sister,” who had been violated by the son of the king of the Shechemites, he blames them. By “brothers selling,” he refers to the sons of Jacob, and by “a brother being sold,” Joseph; and by “a father being deceived,” Jacob—who, when his sons showed him the many-colored coat of Joseph, suspecting nothing evil, gave them credence and lamented for Joseph as though he had perished, while he was in fact serving in Egypt. B Observe, then, in what a hateful manner, and not in love of truth, Celsus has gathered these stories from history; so that where the history seemed to him to contain an accusation, he sets it forth; but where a demonstration of noteworthy temperance has occurred—as when Joseph did not yield to the lust of his supposed mistress, who was at one time entreating him and at another threatening him—he did not even mention the story. For we might see that Joseph was far superior to the stories told of Bellerophon, in that he chose to be shut up in prison rather than to violate the laws of chastity. C Accordingly, though he was able to defend himself and to plead his cause against his accuser, he remained silent with great nobility of soul, entrusting his affairs to God.
After this, Celsus, for the sake of holiness, with complete lack of clarity makes mention of the dreams of the chief cupbearer and the chief baker and Pharaoh, and of their interpretation, through which occasion Joseph was brought forth from prison to be entrusted by Pharaoh with the second throne among the Egyptians. What absurdity, then, did the account of the history have in itself, that it should be numbered among the heads of accusation by the one who, although he entitled his book *The True Word*, nonetheless sets forth no doctrine in it, but does only this, that he might refute Christians and Jews? He adds that he had “kindly bestowed gifts D upon the brothers who had sold him,” and whom famine had compelled to go into Egypt with their asses for trade; and these things he passes over in silence. Nor does he forget the recognition renewed between the brothers; but with what intent, or what absurdity he sees in this affair, I simply do not know. For not even Momus, so to speak, could find what to bite at rightfully in this history, which even without the aid of tropology stirs one greatly toward virtue. He mentions Joseph being freed from the slavery into which he had been sold, and returning with a procession to his father’s tomb, and he thinks he is bringing a charge of...
A contumely against us, saying: "From this person (Joseph, of course), when that splendid and divine Jewish race had spread in Egypt and increased greatly, it was commanded that they dwell elsewhere in low-lying places, by the right of strangers, to graze their flocks." But the remark he makes here, "it was commanded that they graze flocks in low-lying places," suggests the hatred he holds; since he does not prove how the province of Goshen in Egypt was contemptible. Finally, he calls the departure of that people from Egypt a "flight," passing over in silence what is narrated in the book of Exodus concerning that departure of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt. And I have brought these points forward to show that the points which that trifler Celsus chose to accuse us are not even worthy of being criticized in their literal sense; and he does not even indicate what it is in these passages of our Scriptures that he judges to be evil.
48. Then, as if he had given himself over completely to hating and being hostile toward the B doctrine of the Jews and Christians, he says that "even the more reasonable among the Jews and Christians allegorize these things"; and he adds that "they take refuge in allegory because they are ashamed of such things." But someone might say to him, if stories and fictions, whether written for some hidden meaning or for any other purpose, are to be called worthy of shame because of the meaning they first offer, what sort of histories are more deserving of this name than those of the Greeks, in which sons who are gods castrate fathers who are gods, and fathers who are gods devour sons who are gods; and a goddess mother gives to the father of men and gods a stone instead of a son; and a father is joined to his daughter; and a wife casts bonds upon her husband, taking as accomplices in this binding the brother of the one enslaved and his daughter? And why need I recount the absurd histories of the Greeks concerning the gods—histories shameful in themselves, even when they are explained by allegories? Let the example be that Chrysippus of Soli C, who is thought to have graced the Porch [of the Stoics] with many learned works. This serious philosopher, interpreting a painting set up in Samos, in which Hera was depicted yielding to the obscene lust of Zeus, states in his own books that matter receives into itself the seminal reasons of God, and receives into itself for the gratification of nuptials not only those, but also that she performs the unspeakable act through her mouth. There are indeed those who attack Chrysippus, as having written many things shamefully and unspeakably. For in his commentary *On the Ancient Physiologists*, regarding what he hands down about Zeus and Hera, he writes shamefully, composing six hundred lines that no one, even with the most defiled mouth, would write. For he writes that most disgraceful story (even though he praises it as naturalistic) which is more appropriate for prostitutes than for gods.
A Matter—for in the narrative concerning Samos it is Hera, and the god is Zeus—having received into itself the seminal reasons of God, possesses within itself the ordering of all things. And for this reason, B both because of such myths and countless others, we do not wish to call the God over all by the name of Zeus, nor the sun by the name of Apollo, nor the moon by the name of Artemis. But practicing pure piety towards the Creator, and praising His beautiful creations, we do not defile divine things even by a name; accepting the argument from Plato in the *Philebus*, who did not wish to attribute pleasure to the gods: “For my fear,” he says, “O Protarchus, regarding the names of the gods is such.” We therefore truly have a fear regarding the name of God and His beautiful creations, so that we would not, even under the pretext of allegorical interpretation, accept any myth to the detriment of the young.
B 49. But if Celsus had read the Scriptures with an impartial mind, he would certainly not have said that “our writings are not of a sort to admit of allegory.” For it is not from the history itself, but from the prophecies in which the histories are recorded, that one should learn which stories were written with the intention that they might be explained by allegories; a provision most wisely made, so that they might be appropriate both for the simple multitude of believers and for those few who wish to, or are able to, examine things more deeply and prudently. And perhaps it would seem that Celsus was saying something probable if the interpreting of Scriptures by allegories were a recent invention devised by those amongst the Jews and Christians whom Celsus calls the more moderate; but since the very fathers C and authors of the doctrines themselves allegorize such things, what else is to be thought than that they were written in this way so that they might be allegorized according to their primary intent? And to make it plain that Celsus slanders our Scriptures when he says they cannot suffer allegory, I shall select a few examples out of many. Thus Paul, the apostle of Jesus: “It is written in the Law: You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he speak it entirely for our sake? For our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher in hope of partaking.” And in another place he says: “For it is written: Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery D is great; but I am speaking in reference to Christ and the Church.” And again in another place: “But we know, for our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Then, interpreting the histories of the manna and of the water which is recorded to have been miraculously brought forth from the rock, he says such things: “And all,” he says, “ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them; but the rock was—
Christ.” A Since Asaph, intending to record the histories related in the books of Exodus and Numbers, uses a preface in the Book of Psalms that teaches that questions are contained in them wrapped in parables, he introduces it in this way: “Attend, O my people, to my law, incline your ear to the words of my mouth; I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter problems from the beginning, all that we have heard and known, and our fathers have related to us.”
But furthermore, if the law of Moses had nothing recorded that was meant to be understood through hidden meanings, the prophet would not have said while praying to God: “Open my eyes, and I will consider wonderful things out of your law.” But he knew that there is a veil of ignorance hanging over the hearts of those who read and do not understand the things that are used figuratively; which veil is removed, by the grace of God, when God hears him who has done all things that he can, and who through habit has trained his senses to discern between good and evil, and who most constantly says in his prayer: “Open my eyes, and I will consider wonderful things out of your law.” B For who, reading of a dragon living in the Egyptian river, and of fish lurking under its scales, or of the mountains of Egypt filled with the excrement of Pharaoh, is not immediately moved to inquire who he might be who fills the Egyptian mountains with his foul-smelling excrement; and what those Egyptian mountains are; and who the Egyptian rivers are, concerning which the aforementioned boastful Pharaoh says: “The rivers are mine, and I have made them”; and who the dragon is, standing in proportion to the rivers that are to be demonstrated by the interpretation; and who the fish are beneath his scales? And what need is there for me to pile up more arguments for things that require no proof, and concerning which it is said: “Who is wise, and will understand these things? Understanding, and he shall know them”? Nevertheless, I have extended the argument at greater length, wishing to demonstrate that Celsus has not spoken soundly in saying that “the more moderate among the Jews and Christians attempt to allegorize these things in some way, but there are some that can in no way admit of an allegory, as they are most foolish fables.” C Rather, those which the Greeks have fashioned into fables are most foolish, and indeed altogether impious. For our accounts are adapted even to the multitude of the simpler folk, but the authors of the Greek fables did not take care to adjust themselves to their capacity. Whence it is not undeservedly that Plato expels such fables and poems from his own republic. D
A It seems to me that he may also have heard that there are writings containing allegories of the Law; had he read these, he would not have said: "The allegories that are seen to have been written about them are much baser and more absurd than the myths, being such as can in no way be harmonized, and connecting them with a marvelous and utterly senseless folly." He seems to be speaking of the writings of Philo, or perhaps of those even more ancient, such as those of Aristobulus. B I suspect, however, that Celsus has not read these books, since it seems to me that he has often been so unsuccessful that even those among the Greeks who philosophize would be repelled by the things said; for in them not only is the diction cultivated, but also the thoughts, the doctrines, and the use of the myths which Celsus imagines are from the Scriptures. I know, too, that Numenius the Pythagorean—a man who explained Plato far better and was well-versed in Pythagorean doctrines—often set forth in his writings the words of Moses and the prophets, and interpreted them not implausibly by means of allegories, as in the book entitled *Epops*, and in his books *On Numbers*, and *On Place*. In the third book *On the Good*, he sets forth also a certain history concerning Jesus, without mentioning his name, and interprets it allegorically; whether he does so successfully or unsuccessfully is a matter for another time to say. He sets forth also the history concerning Moses, and Jannes and Jambres. C Which we do not consider to be for his glory; but yet he is more...
[Regarding the footnote material:]
... Aristobulus, a Jew by birth and a Peripatetic philosopher, is known, who wrote commentaries explaining Moses for Ptolemy Philometor. D ... I, however, consider the whole passage to be read as follows: Origen should be understood as if, by "Scriptures," he had not wished to signify only the canonical books, but also apocryphal writings. Origen, tract 35 on Matthew: "But if anyone, saying this, thinks he is committing an offense, let him see whether this is not prophesied somewhere in the *Secrets of Jeremiah*; knowing that the Apostle also brings forth certain scriptures of the secrets: just as he says somewhere, 'that eye has not seen, nor ear heard': for this is not found written in any canonical book, unless in the *Secrets of the Prophet Elijah*. Likewise, that which he says, 'as Jannes and Mambres withstood Moses,' is not found in the public scriptures, but in a secret book which is inscribed the *Book of Jannes and Mambres*: whence some have dared to reject the Epistle to Timothy, as if it contained the text of some secret writing, but they could not." Ambrose, *Commentary on II Timothy*, chapter 3: "This example is from the apocrypha. For Jannes and Mambres were brothers, magicians and sorcerers of the Egyptians, who by the art of their magic..."
A Celsus and other Greeks are to be commended, who have wished to investigate our Scriptures, and have been moved by them as by things not foolish but covered in allegories.
52. Among all the writings that contain such allegorical explanations and are elegantly written, he chooses a more common one, which, while it might contribute something to the promotion of the faith of the simpler crowd, nevertheless has no weight in persuading those who are more intelligent. Then he says: "What is that which I read—the dispute of a certain Papiscus and Jason, worthy not of laughter but rather of pity and disgust? It is not my intention to refute these things; for their absurdity is plain to all, especially to anyone who can bring himself to listen to the books themselves. It would be better to teach what nature itself teaches, namely, that God made nothing mortal, but that His works—all that are truly His—are immortal, and that it is by these that things which are mortal were created; that the soul is God’s work, but the nature of the body is different, and that in this respect it will differ nothing from a bat, or a maggot, or a frog, or..."
B And in the third book of Moses the same man records the following, saying: "Next, Jannes and Jambres, Egyptian sacred scribes, men deemed second to none in the practice of magic, were prominent at the time when the Jews were being expelled from Egypt. To Moses, who was leading the Jews and who was a man most powerful in praying to God, these men were chosen by the multitude of the Egyptians to stand against him; and they were seen to be powerful in undoing the most vigorous of the disasters which Moses brought upon Egypt." But we do not boast of this. ...I have read this—"seven heavens"—in the dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, written by Aristo of Pella, which Clement of Alexandria in the sixth book of the *Hypotyposes* says the holy Luke recorded. "The curse of God is he who is hanged."
C ...the Deity which was at work through Moses, they thought they could resist it with sham emulation; but when the virtue of Moses increased in his works, they became humble and confessed with the pain of their wounds that God was at work in Moses. You will find the passage of Numenius, to whom Origen refers us, in Eusebius, Book IX, chapter 8 of the *Praeparatio Evangelica*.
And again in the third book he makes mention of Moses with these words: "Next, indeed," he says, "Jannes and Jambres, Egyptian sacred scribes, were prominent at the time when the Jews were cast out from the borders of Egypt, being men who in the judgment of all were second to none in the science of magic matters. For both were chosen by the common consent of the Egyptians to oppose Moses, the leader of the Jews, whose prayers before God were most powerful, and they were able to dissolve and dissipate the most grave of all the calamities which Moses had brought upon Egypt." Artapanus makes mention of the same men in his book *On the Jews*; however, he did not express their names; Eusebius, Book IX, chapter 27. Whether Apuleius attained knowledge of these things from these or similar apocryphal books, or from the holy Scripture and the acquaintance he had with Christians, I truly do not know. Certainly, Augustine speaks of the same matter when he calls him to justice (Book VIII, chapter 19, *De Civitate Dei*): "Finally, was not Apuleius himself accused of magic arts before Christian judges?" Apuleius in his *Apology*: "If you prove any profit soever, may I be as Charinondas, or Damigeron, or that Moses, or Jannes, or Apollonius, or he himself Dardanus, or whoever else is celebrated among magicians after Zoroaster and Hostanes." But these things are trivial and not worth mentioning. Macarius alone saw the monument which the magicians had constructed; he entered the garden, found much gold deposited there, drove away seventy demons with terror, saw a well, a brazen jar, and an iron chain: which, alas, time had so consumed that we, from that narration, and Macarius from the well, to draw forth the truth, seem equally impossible. Hence it comes to wonder how it could have happened that very learned men could place faith in these and similar fables, which are partly feigned and partly blurted out rashly. Indeed, the Jews, being fairer judges in this cause, reported that they were overwhelmed by the waters. But those doctors instilled a far different faith in the simpler folk, while they transcribed this fable, though it was so cunningly composed. For if I should recite the whole of it, those who until now have been held by stupor and admiration would laugh with compressed lips and agitate their lungs. See Palladius, *Hist. Laus.*, chapter 20, *On Macarius of Alexandria*.
D [alt-version omitted]
nature; and for that reason, that the human body does not differ from a bat, a worm, or a frog. For he claims that the material of these and of the human body is the same, and that the principle of corruption is the same in them as in it. A I would wish, however, that whoever hears Celsus arrogantly declaiming that the little book of the disputation of Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ is worthy not of laughter, but rather of hatred, would take the little book into his hands and submit himself to endure and hear the things written in it; so that from that very source he might pass judgment on Celsus, finding nothing in the book worthy of hatred. And indeed, if anyone reads it with an impartial mind, he will find that the book does not even provoke laughter, in which is recorded a Christian debating with a Jew from the Jewish Scriptures, and demonstrating that the prophecies concerning Christ apply to Jesus; although the adversary vigorously contradicts and maintains the Jewish persona quite skillfully. B 53. Furthermore, I do not know how Celsus, having gathered together things that are incompatible and not naturally suited to occur simultaneously in human nature, could have said that that little book was worthy of both pity and hatred. For no one will deny that when a person is an object of pity, he is not hated, and no one is an object of pity when he is hated. And Celsus says he does not intend to refute these things because he thinks that their absurdity is manifest to all, and that there is no one who does not see, even before they are refuted by arguments, how worthy they are of pity and hatred. We exhort all, however, who may encounter this defense of ours against the calumnies of Celsus, not to be reluctant to hear our Scriptures, and that, as much as they are able, C they may gather from what the writers report what their purpose was, what their conscience, what the state of their soul; they will perceive that they were men who fervently defended what they had convinced themselves of, and that some declare that they are committing to writing events which they had seen with their own eyes and had confirmed, marvelous things worthy to be entrusted to records for the benefit of future readers. And surely no one would dare deny that the source and principle of all utility is to believe in the highest God, and in all actions to aim at pleasing Him, and not even to think of anything that could displease Him, as He is to be the judge not only of words and deeds, but also of thoughts. D And what other philosophy could more effectively turn the human nature toward living well than belief or the conviction that the God who is over all sees everything that we say and do, and even what we think? For let him who wishes show another way by which not just one or two, but a vast multitude are recalled to a better life; and let him judge by a comparison of one with the other, which doctrine leads to virtue. 54. But since in the words of Celsus just mentioned, where certain things transcribed from the *Timaeus* are cited, this is written, as: "Since, therefore, all who as clearly as they appear, as far as they have willed, have had a birth—" he says to them, "Gods of gods, and
A God made nothing mortal, but B only things immortal, and that mortal things are the works of others; and that the soul is a work of God, but the body has a different nature; and that the body of a man will in no way differ from the body of a bat, or a worm, or a frog; for the matter is the same, and the corruptible part of them is the same. Come, let us also discuss these briefly, refuting him who either feigns that he is not of his own Epicurean opinion, or (as one might say) later changed to better things, or (as another might say) bears a name identical to the Epicurean. For he ought to have explained such things, and when setting himself to speak against not only us, but also against no ignoble school of philosophers, those from Zeno of Citium, he should have established that the bodies of animals are not the works of God, and that such great craftsmanship concerning them did not come from the primary Intellect. And yet he ought, concerning even things so great, and concerning the all-sorts of plants governed by an invisible nature dwelling within them, which have resulted to no contemptible use for men in the universe, and concerning the animals that serve men—no matter how they exist—not only to have declared, but also to have taught that no perfect intellect infused such qualities into the material of plants. But if once he made gods the creators of all bodies, as if the soul alone were a work of God, how was it not incumbent upon one who divides such great creations, and gives them to many, to establish with some not-contemptible argument the differences among the gods? Some of whom produce human bodies, and others, let us say, beasts? C Now, therefore, I say to you, showing you, learn: there are three sorts of mortal beings yet remaining. If these, then, were not to be, the heaven will be imperfect; for it will not contain all the kinds of animals in it, and it needs to be so if it is to be sufficiently perfect. So they having been brought into being by me, and having participated in life, they might become equal to the gods. In order, therefore, that there may be mortal things and that the All may be truly all, do you turn according to nature to the creation of animals, imitating my power regarding your generation. And of divine things he himself becomes the creator; but he commanded his own offspring to create the generation of mortal things. And they, imitating him, having received an immortal principle of soul, afterwards molded the mortal body themselves, and gave the whole body a shape; they also built within it another kind of soul, mortal, having terrible and necessary passions within it. First, pleasure, the greatest bait of evils, is [in it]. D
A and of other beasts; he should have, when seeing gods who are creators of dragons, both of asps, and of basilisks, and of others according to the species of each plant and of each herb, stated the reasons for their divisions. For perhaps, if he had given himself over to the precision of the examination of the things that are according to their place, he would either have kept to one God, the creator of all, who made each thing for some purpose and for the sake of something; or, if he did not keep to this, he would have seen what he ought to have answered concerning a thing which is indifferent to the same corruptible nature; and that it is not at all absurd for the world, consisting of dissimilar parts, to have been made by one craftsman, who, advantageously for the whole, fashions the differences of the species; or at the very least he ought not to have declared his opinion at the beginning concerning such a doctrine if he were not going to construct that which he promised to teach; unless, perhaps, he who reproaches us for our simple faith wished that we ourselves should believe the things that he asserted, even though he promised not merely to assert, but to teach: so that we might assent only to him asserting; although he B promised that he would show, but he should have been, C as he says, among those who read the writings D of Moses and the prophets. He would have observed why it is that, « God made, » is laid down concerning heaven and earth, and the so-called firmament, and furthermore also concerning the luminaries and stars; and after these things concerning the great sea-monsters, and every soul of creeping animals which the waters brought forth after their kinds, and every winged bird after its kind; and following these things, concerning the wild beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and all the creeping things of the earth after their kind; and lastly concerning man. But where it is not stated, « He made, » concerning others, the word is satisfied concerning light with, « Let there be light; » and concerning the gathering of all the water that is under the whole heaven, with, « It was so. » And likewise also concerning those things which sprouted from the earth, when the earth brought forth the herb of grass seeding seed according to its kind and according to likeness, and the fruit-bearing tree producing fruit, whose seed is in it according to its kind upon the earth. And he would have inquired whether the prescribed commands of God for the creation of each part of the world were given to one or to some; and he would not have easily inveighed against them as unintelligent, and as having no secret understanding in the things written in these by Moses, or (as we would say) by the divine Spirit who was in Moses, by whose breathing he also prophesied. Since He rather:
"Knew what is, what was, and what is to come,"
than those divine ones among whom these things are celebrated by the poets as having been explored.
56. Furthermore, since Celsus says that the soul of God is a work, but that of the body is another nature and by this very same nature.
A It is easy to answer that the material is the same, and that the principle of corruption in both is identical. For if, on that account, the bodies of a bat, a worm, a frog, and a man do not differ from one another because the material of all those bodies is the same, then clearly, the bodies of the sun, moon, stars, heaven, or any other god of the Greeks that is said to be an object of sense, will not differ at all from these. For the material of all bodies, being subject to its own principle (λόγῳ), is formless and shapeless—though I do not know how it receives qualities, according to Celsus, who does not wish for anything perishable to be a work of God. B For, according to Celsus's argument, whatever is perishable must necessarily be similar to any other thing that has been brought into existence out of the same underlying material. Unless Celsus, being hard-pressed here, should jump away from Plato—who says that the soul comes forth from a certain mixing bowl—and flee to Aristotle and the Peripatetics, who claim that the ether is immaterial and is of a fifth nature, distinct from the four elements. The followers of Plato and the Stoics have also stood against this argument not ignobly. And we too, who are despised by Celsus, shall stand firm, being required to explain and substantiate what is said in the prophet as follows: "The heavens shall perish, but You remain; and all of them shall grow old like a garment, and as a covering You shall roll them up, and they shall be changed. But You are the same." C Yet these things are sufficient against Celsus, who has declared that "the soul is a work of God, but the body is another nature," for his argument leads to the conclusion that the body of the ether does not differ in any way from that of a bat, a worm, or a frog.
See, therefore, whether one should believe a person who, while accusing the Christians with such dogmas, ought to abandon the doctrine suggesting that there is a difference between bodies due to the qualities pertaining to them and surrounding them. For we also know that there are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; and the glory of the heavenly bodies is one, and that of the earthly is another.
57. Now consider whether, when one posits such dogmas, he is to be trusted, or whether one should reject the doctrine which teaches that bodies differ from each other because they are endowed with different qualities, inside and out. We know indeed that we have celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies, and that there is one kind of glory for the celestial bodies and another for the terrestrial. D And insofar as it befits them to be homonymous with the immortals, being called divine, and to hold sway in them over those who always wish to follow justice and you, I shall sow them and, having initiated them, deliver them to you; but for the rest, do you, by interweaving the mortal with the immortal, fashion living beings, and bring them forth, and increase them by providing them with food, and receive them back again when they perish." He said these things; and again, into the former mixing bowl in which He had mixed and tempered the soul of the universe, He poured the remnants of the previous mixture, in a certain way the same, but no longer as pure and according to the same measure, but as second and third. "And it should be, that after they have been sown into the instruments relevant to each, each would grow into the most god-fearing animal. And since the human nature is twofold, the superior race should be such as would hereafter be called man."
A Another glory is of the earthly, and not even of the heavenly. For one is the glory of the sun, and another the glory of the stars, and among the stars themselves, star differs from star in glory [1 Cor. XV, 40-41]. Therefore, because we accept the resurrection of the dead, we say that transformations of the qualities of the bodies take place; since some are sown in corruption, they are raised in incorruption; and sown in dishonor, they are raised in glory; and sown in weakness, they are raised in power; and bodies sown psychical are raised spiritual [1 Cor. XV, 42-44].
Moreover, that the underlying matter is receptive to the qualities which the Creator wills, all of us who admit Providence maintain; and when God wills it, the quality currently about this matter is one thing, and the next is another—to say, better and different. And since there are set paths for the transformations of the things in bodies, from the time the world exists and for as long as it shall exist—I do not know if, when a new and different path has succeeded after the destruction of the world and what our doctrines call the "consummation," it is a matter of wonder if, at the present time, a snake 18 (as many say) is transformed from a dead man and generated from the spinal marrow, and a bee from an ox 19, and a wasp from a horse, and a dung-beetle from an ass, and, simply put, worms from most things. Celsus thinks this is an argument that none of these things is the work of God, but that the qualities—not B C indeed, for God did not create the whole in vain, nor to no purpose, nor for destruction, as those who think things are in vain suppose, but so that it might exist, and be inhabited, and remain. Therefore, it is necessary that both the earth and the heaven shall exist again after the conflagration of all things and the boiling heat [2 Pet. III, 10].
For the creation will indeed be troubled, as if dying during the conflagration, in order that it may be rebuilt, but it is not to be expected that it will perish; so that we who have been renewed might dwell in a renewed world, tasted no more of sorrow; or, as it is written: "Thou wilt send forth thy spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth" [Ps. CIII, 30]—God having henceforth taken charge of the temperate condition of the encompassing air. For since there will be an earth even after this age, it is quite necessary that there shall also be those who will inhabit it. D
A sine ulla divina intelligentia, quae illas mutet materiae qualitates.
58. One thing remains that I must say against this statement of Celsus: "To say that the soul is the work of God, but the body is of another nature," is something he puts forward not only without any proof, but also ambiguously. For he does not declare whether every soul is the work of God, or only that which is rational. We say, therefore, to him, that if every soul is the work of God, then obviously those of the irrational and vilest creatures are as well, so that the nature of every body B is different from that of its soul. Yet, in what follows, where he says that irrational animals are more beloved by God than we are, and possess a purer notion of the Divine, he seems to confirm this very thing, that the soul of irrational animals, just as that of humans—or rather, even more than that of humans—is the work of God. For that conclusion follows from his claim that they are more acceptable to God than we are. If, however, only the rational soul is the work of God, first of all he has not clearly indicated this; and second, since he spoke about the soul without any clear distinction, not stating that not every soul is the work of God, but only that which is rational, it follows then that not every body has a different nature. But if not every body has a different nature, but each animal has a body proportioned to its soul, it is clear that the body of the one whose soul is the work of God would differ from the body in which a soul dwells that is *not* the work of God. Thus it will be false to say that the body of a bat, a worm, or a frog does not differ from that of a human.
C For it is indeed absurd for stones to be considered purer or more impure than other stones, or buildings than other buildings, based on whether they were constructed for the honor of the Divine or as a receptacle for the vilest and most abominable bodies; and yet for bodies not to differ from other bodies, based on whether they are inhabited by rational or irrational souls, or by souls of virtuous or most wicked men. Such reasoning has led some to dare to deify the bodies of those who excelled in virtue, as having received a noble soul, while casting away or treating with contempt the bodies of the most wicked—not that this has always been done D correctly, but that it took its origin from a certain sound conception. For will a wise man, after the death of Anytus and Socrates, be equally solicitous about the burial of both their bodies? Will he construct an equal and similar monument or tomb for both? And this is in reference to that statement of Celsus: "Of which none is the work of God" (by "of which" he understands the body, and the snakes born from the body, or the ox and the bees born from the body of the ox:
*Thy tomb, O Hymettus, may ever drip with the honey of bees born from oxen.*
Likewise, concerning horses:
*Horses are the creation of wasps, and bulls of bees.*
Likewise, concerning the scarab beetle: The scarab is so named from the word *canthon* (ass), and *oros* (seed). For they say that the scarab is generated in this way: when it finds the round dung of an ass, it stays there, digging with its feet, and while digging it emits seed, and from this the animal, the scarab, is born.
And likewise regarding the horse, or the ass, and those [creatures] born from the horse [to wit, wasps], and from the ass [the scarabs]—for which reasons I judged it necessary to repeat also that: "The soul indeed is the work of God, but the body is of another nature." A
60. He says afterwards, "that the nature of all the aforementioned bodies is common, and one, and departs and returns in fixed vicissitudes." From what I have said above, it is manifest that not only the nature of the bodies which Celsus enumerated, but also that of the celestial [bodies], is common. And if this is so, surely from this—whether from the truth, I do not know—that nature of all bodies is one and the same, departing and returning in fixed vicissitudes. It is indeed true that this is the opinion of those who judge the world to be corruptible. But those who hold the contrary opinion concerning the world, will demonstrate that the nature of all bodies is common and one, even without the admission of a fifth body, B departing and returning in fixed vicissitudes, and thus that which appears to perish remains, having been changed. For the subject matter, with the quality perishing, remains the same, as those who wish it to be uncreated assert. And if it could be proven that it is not uncreated, but was made for a certain use, it is clear that its nature would not be the same, so far as permanence is concerned, as if it were posited as uncreated. But these things belong to natural philosophers; our concern, however, is to refute the calumnies of Celsus.
61. He adds, "that nothing of those things which are born from matter is immortal." To which I respond: If nothing of those things which are born from matter is immortal, either this whole world is immortal, and consequently not born from matter, or it is not immortal. If it is immortal—which also pleases those who say that only the soul is the work of God, and that it comes forth from some vessel—let Celsus show that the world was not made from matter devoid of quality, and that the immortality of the world is consistent with that principle of his, C that nothing of those things which are born from matter is immortal. But if the world, because it is made from matter, is not immortal; will that mortal world be susceptible to corruption or not? If the former, then it will be susceptible to corruption because it is not the work of God. But in that corruption of the world, what will become of the soul, which is the work of God? Let Celsus say. Or if, perverting the notion of "immortal," Celsus should say that it is immortal to the corruptible but not-perishing thing, as being susceptible to death but not dying; it is clear that there will be something according to him that is mortal and immortal at the same time, because it is susceptible to both; D and it will be mortal, not dying...
and that which is not by nature immortal is, by the fact that it does not die, specifically called immortal. In what sense, therefore, will he, by distinguishing, say that "nothing born of matter is immortal"? A And you see that when the ideas in the writings are pressed and examined, they are refuted as failing to admit of what is noble and indisputable. Having said these things, he adds: "Regarding this, these things suffice; and if anyone is able to hear and inquire further, he will find out." Let us then, we who are "fools" according to him, see what has followed from our having been able to hear him even for a little while and to inquire.
Following these things, he thinks that we can learn through a few brief words what has been sought in many and not negligible arguments concerning the nature of evils, and interpreted in various ways, saying: "Evils in existing things can neither be fewer nor more, neither before, nor now, nor hereafter. For the nature of the universe is one and the same; and the generation of evils is always the same." And these things also seem to have been paraphrased from those in the *Theaetetus*, in which Socrates in Plato said: "But it is neither possible for evils B to be destroyed among men, nor for them to be established among the gods, and so forth." And it seems to me that the man who encompasses the truth in this one composition, and inscribes his own book against us as a "True Word," has not even heard Plato accurately. For the expression in the *Timaeus* saying, "When the gods purify the earth with water," has revealed that the earth, being purified by waters, has fewer evils than in the time before it was purified. And we say this according to Plato—that there are at times fewer evils—because of the expression in the *Theaetetus* which says that evils cannot be destroyed from among men.
C I do not know, however, in what way he posits Providence. As far as the words of this book go, he says that evils are neither more nor fewer, but as it were defined, destroying the most excellent dogma concerning the fact that wickedness and evils are undefined, and in their own logic infinite. And it seems that with the "neither fewer nor more evils have happened, or are, or will be," it follows that, just as according to those who hold the world to be imperishable, the equilibrium of the elements comes about from Providence, which does not allow one of them to overreach, so that the world may not perish; thus, as it were, a sort of Providence stands over evils, so that they exist in such and such an amount, so that they may become neither more nor fewer. D And Celsus' argument concerning evils is also refuted in another way by the philosophers who have examined the matters of good and evil.
For these, dealing with the question of good and evil, have proved by historical records that harlots formerly accommodated those who wished it, first outside the cities and wearing masks; then, though they remained outside the cities because the laws forbade them to enter, they did so after having cast aside their masks and shame; and finally, as depravity grew day by day, they dared even to enter the cities. Chrysippus says this in his treatise *On Good and Evil*. Where also, as an argument that evils grow and diminish, it may be seen that there were formerly those who were called "ambiguous," who served the lust of those coming to them by suffering or inflicting defilement; whom the aediles later expelled. There are six hundred evils which malice, having poured itself into the life of men, has introduced, of which it can be said that they did not exist before. And even the most ancient histories, although they narrate innumerable crimes of offenders, are silent about those who offer themselves as ministers to unspeakable pleasures.
64. Since these and similar things are so, how is Celsus not ridiculous when he denies that there are ever fewer or more evils? For even if the nature of this universe is one and the same, it does not follow that the generation of evils is always the same. For just as the nature of any given man is one and the same, yet his mind, his reason, and his actions do not always remain in the same state—but at one time he has not yet attained the use of reason, at another time malice is conjoined with reason, and this malice is sometimes greater and sometimes less; at one time he strives for virtue, and in it he makes more or B less progress; at another time he reaches the summit, but with more or fewer contemplations—so too, and much more so, must this be said of the nature of this universe, in which, although its nature is one and the same in its totality, yet the same and similar things do not always happen. For there is not always fertility or sterility, or rains or droughts. So neither is there always a good or bad harvest of good souls; and of vices there is sometimes more, sometimes less. And those who wish to examine all things diligently ought to know this, that evils are not always the same, whether Providence preserves the earth in the state in which it is, or purges it by floods or conflagration. Perhaps it purges not only the earth, D but the whole of this world as well, when, as malice grows, it is in need of this remedy.
65. Afterwards Celsus says: "What is the nature of evils, it is not easy for a man unlearned in philosophy to know. But for the multitude it will suffice to say that evils are not from God, but inhere in matter, and in those who..."
dwell among mortal natures. And the period of mortal things A is the same from beginning to end; and according to the appointed cycles, it is necessary that the same things have always happened, and exist, and will exist. And Celsus says that it is not easy for one who has not philosophized to know the origin of evils; as if it were easy for the philosopher to know their origin, while for the one who has not philosophized, though it is not easy to perceive the origin of evils, yet it is possible to know it, albeit with labor. We, however, say to this that it is not easy even for one who has philosophized to know the origin of evils; and perhaps it is not even possible for them to know it clearly, unless by the inspiration of God it be made clear what evils are, and how it is understood that they have come into being, and in what manner they shall be made to disappear. Since, in any case, ignorance of God is among evils, and the greatest evil is not to know the manner of the service of God and the standard of piety toward Him, it is certain that even according to Celsus some of those who have philosophized did not know it, which is evident from the different sects in philosophy. But according to us, no one who does not know what evil is, and who thinks that piety consists in observing the laws established according to the more commonly understood constitutions, will be able to know the origin of evils. And no one who has not distinguished the matters concerning him who is called the devil and his angels—who this was before he became the devil, B and how he became the devil, and what was the cause of those called his angels departing with him from God—will be able to know the origin of evils. And it is necessary for him who is to know this also to have understood more accurately concerning demons, namely that in so far as they are demons, they are not the works of God, but only in so far as they are rational beings; and whence they have come to be such, so that in the state of their being demons, their governing faculty was established. If, therefore, any other topic among those that require investigation by men is hard for our nature to track down, the origin of evils would be ranked among these.
Then, as if he had something more secret to say about the origin of evils, yet keeping silent on those things and saying what is appropriate for the multitudes, he says: "It suffices to have said to the multitude concerning the origin of evils, that evils are not from God, but inhere in matter, and dwell among mortals." It is indeed true that evils are not from God. For according to our Jeremiah it is clear that "out of the mouth of the Lord shall not go forth evils and good." 35 But that matter, dwelling among mortals, is the cause of evils, is not true according to us. For the governing faculty of each person is the cause of the wickedness that has come into being in him, which is the evil; and the deeds that proceed from it are evils; and nothing else, if we wish to speak accurately, is to be considered evil according to us. But I know that this matter requires much elaboration and construction (by the grace of God enlightening the governing faculty), which things those who are judged by D 66. Deinde Celsus, quasi quid arcanum de illa malorum origine dicere haberet, quod tacet ut nihil proferat nisi vulgi captui attemperatum: "Vulgo satis est dicere," inquit, "mala non esse a Deo, sed in materia hærere et inter mortalia versari." Hoc verum quidem est, mala non esse a Deo. Jeremias enim noster declarat: "Ex ore Domini non egressura nec mala nec bona." Sed materiam naturarum mortalium propriam esse malorum causam, id vero negamus. Nam sua cuique voluntas causa ipsi est malitiæ, quæ malum est, ut et mala sunt actiones ad quas compellit; neque quidquam aliud, si accurate loqui volumus, malum existimandum est. Nec sum tamen nescius hanc quæstionem non nisi magna diligentia exquisitisque argumentis esse pertractandam: quæ argumenta is solus reperire potest, cujus Dei gratia mentem il-
illu- A strates, whom God judges worthy of the knowledge of this question.
67. But I do not know why it seemed expedient to Celsus, writing against us, if he were to seize upon a dogma which has need of much, or at least plausible, proof, to confirm, as far as it can be done, that the conversion of mortal natures is similar to itself from beginning to end, and that from the established order of conversions it is necessary that the past, present, and future are always the same. But if it is so, it is all over with our free will. For if from the established order of conversions it is necessary that the same things have always been, are, and will be in mortal affairs, it is evident that it will be necessary that Socrates always applies himself to philosophy; that he be accused of introducing strange B gods and corrupting the youth; that Anytus and Melitus always bear witness against him, and the Areopagite judges condemn him to drink the hemlock. So also, from the established conversions, it will be necessary that Phalaris always exercises tyranny; that in his bull condemned men always groan; that Alexander of Pherae always emulates his cruelty; with which, if they are granted, I do not know how our free will can stand, and we can be deservedly praised or blamed. Again, if, as Celsus posits, the conversion of mortal natures is always similar to itself from beginning to end; therefore it is necessary that from the established conversions Moses always goes out from Egypt with the Jewish people; that Jesus comes here again to do the same things C which he has already done not once, but infinitely after each and every conversion; that the same Christians are in each conversion; that Celsus writes the same book, which he has already written infinite times, again.
68. And Celsus indeed says that only mortal things, from the established conversions, have necessarily been, are, and will be the same; but most of the Stoics wish such a conversion to be not only of mortal natures, but also of immortal ones, and of their gods. For after the conflagration of this universe, D which has happened infinitely and will happen infinitely, the same order recurs from beginning to end. Nor, indeed, shall I omit the Stoics who say that God pervades all matter, however vile and abject. But the Stoics define the divine substance thus: A spirit endowed with intelligence and fiery, devoid of form, but changing itself into any shape whatsoever, and assimilating itself to any things whatsoever.
A a conflagration which has happened an infinite number of times, and will happen an infinite number of times, all things have been and will be in the same order from beginning to end. The Stoics, however, in attempting to heal these absurdities, I know not how, say that all men return in fixed periods, who are altogether similar to the men of the former periods; so that it is not Socrates who is to come into being again, but someone exactly like Socrates, who will marry a wife exactly like Xanthippe [(47)], and will be accused by men who resemble Anytus and Melitus in every respect. I do not know, however, how the world is always the same, and not one different from another, while the things in it are not the same, but exactly similar. But the deeper argument B regarding both the words of Celsus and the Stoic doctrines [(48)] will more conveniently be examined elsewhere, since it does not suit the present time and the purpose at hand to dwell upon these matters at length.
After this he says, "that those things which are seen are not given to man, but everything is born and perishes for the sake of the salvation of the whole, according to that exchange from one to another which I mentioned before." It is redundant to spend time on the refutation of these points, which we have already set forth to the best of our ability. It has also been said regarding this, "Neither good things nor evil things can be fewer or more among mortal beings." I have also replied to what he said, "that there is no need for God to correct his own works." For God is not like a human who makes something C imperfectly, and, having created it more crudely, brings a correction to the world, cleaning it by flood or conflagration; rather, he prevents the flow of wickedness from spreading further. I, for my part, believe that he wholly destroys wickedness in an orderly manner for the benefit of the whole [(50)]. But whether, after the destruction of wickedness, there is a reason for it to come into being again or not, such matters will be examined in a more comprehensive discourse [(51)]. He wishes, therefore, through new corrections, for God to always be taking up the errors; for even if all things have been ordained by him most beautifully and safely in the creation of all things, nevertheless he stood in need of a certain medicine [(52)] for those who are suffering from the wickedness that is, as it were, polluting the entire world. And D nothing has been neglected by God, nor will it be neglected, as he does in each time what it was appropriate for him to do in a changeable and mutable world. And just as a farmer, according to the differences of the seasons of the year, performs different agricultural works upon the earth and the things growing upon it, so God, as it were (if I may so speak), manages all the ages as years, doing in each of them what the reason concerning the whole demands—a reason which is known and perfectly accomplished by God alone, as it really is.
Celsus also raised a certain argument concerning evils.
A It is of such a nature that, "Even if something seems evil to you, it is not yet clear that it is evil; for you do not know whether it is advantageous to you, or to another, or to the whole." Now, the statement B has something prudent about it; but it also suggests that the nature of evils is not entirely wicked, because it is possible that what is deemed evil in individual cases may be advantageous to the whole. Nevertheless, lest anyone misunderstand what is said and find in it an excuse for his own wickedness, saying that it also happens to be useful to the universe, or at least capable of being useful, it must be said that, even if God—while preserving the freedom of our will—uses the malice of the wicked for the order of the universe and adapts them to its utility, those who perpetrate evil are nonetheless guilty. Insofar as they are guilty, they are indeed ordered toward the utility of the universe, but there is no one who should not detest that utility. Just as if someone were accused of certain crimes and, because of them, were condemned in a city to public works useful to all, he would be said to be doing something that brings utility to the whole city; yet he himself would be seen performing an abominable duty, in which no one with even moderate sense would want to be involved. Hence it is that Paul, the apostle of Jesus, teaches us that even the most wicked will be useful to the universe, though they themselves are to be relegated among those who are to be detested; but that those who strive for virtue will offer the greatest utilities to the universe, and for that reason are to be placed in the most excellent position. He says: "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also wooden and earthen; and some for honor, some for dishonor. If someone, therefore, cleanses himself, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, and useful to the Lord, prepared for every good work." C And I judge it necessary to have set these things forth in response to the statement, "Even if something seems evil to you, it is not yet clear that it is evil; for you do not know whether it is advantageous to you or to another," so that no one might take from this the occasion to sin, as if that person would be useful to the universe by the very act of sinning.
71. But since, after these things, Celsus derides certain places in the Scriptures which he did not understand at all, and does so for these reasons, because human affections as it were are attributed there to God, while He uses words of wrath against the impious and directs threats against sinners, we must answer that, just as we, when we speak to very small children, do not use our full power of speech, but lower ourselves to the weak understanding of those before us, saying and doing what seems to conduce to their instruction and correction—as children—so the Word of God seems to have managed the things written, having measured out what is fitting in the message D according to the capacity of the hearers and what is useful to them. And generally concerning this mode of delivering what pertains to God, it is written in Deuteronomy thus: "The Lord bore your ways—"
as a man would bear his son." A For the Word speaks such things, as if bearing the ways of a man for the benefit of men; for the multitudes did not require God, in manifesting Himself, to adapt to such people things that would be spoken as pertains to His majesty. But whoever cares for the clarity of the divine Scriptures will find that what are called spiritual things there correspond to those who are called spiritual; and by comparing the sense of what is said to the weaker with the sense of what is addressed to the more acute, he will find that both are often exhibited in the same passage to those who know how to hear it.
We speak, then, of the wrath of God, yet we do not say that it is a B passion of His, but rather a certain procedure adopted for the education of those who have sinned in such and such ways, through harsher discipline. For that the so-called wrath of God, and His so-called fury, educates—and this is what pleases the Word—is evident from what is said in the sixth Psalm: "O Lord, do not rebuke me in Thy fury, nor educate me in Thy wrath," and in Jeremiah: "Educate us, O Lord, yet in judgment, and not in wrath, lest Thou make us few." And if anyone reads in the second book of Kings of the wrath of God persuading David to number the people, and in the first book of Chronicles of the devil being the one to whom the same thing is ascribed, and compares the passages with one another, he will perceive upon whom the wrath is placed, of which Paul says that all men have been born children, saying: "We C were by nature children of wrath, even as the others." And that wrath is not a passion of God, but each one prepares it for himself through the things in which he sins, Paul the same will make plain: "Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you are storing up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." How then can each man store up for himself wrath in the day of wrath, if wrath is understood as a passion? And how can a passion of wrath educate? Moreover, the Word that teaches us by no means to be angry, and which says in the thirty-sixth Psalm, "Cease from wrath, and forsake fury," and which says also in Paul, "Put away also you all—wrath, fury, malice, blasphemy, D foul speech," would not have assigned to God Himself the passion of which He desires us to be entirely free. And it is clear that things concerning the wrath of God are to be understood allegorically, from the fact that sleep is also recorded of Him, from which the prophet, as if waking Him, says: "Arise, why do You sleep, O Lord?" And again he says: "And the Lord was awakened as one sleeping, as a mighty man who has drunk wine." If, therefore, sleep signifies something other than what is immediately
A suggested by the letter, why should not anger also be understood in a similar way? And the threats, too, are announcements of what will befall the wicked; just as if someone were to say that the words of a physician to his patients are threats, when he says: "I shall cut you, and I shall apply cauteries to you, if you do not obey my instructions, and if you do not follow this diet, and if you do not conduct yourself in this way." Therefore, we do not attribute human passions to God, nor do we hold impious opinions about Him, nor are we wandering in error when we interpret those matters by comparing different passages of the Scriptures with one another. Nor do those who wisely perform the office of teaching among us propose to themselves anything other than to remove, as far as possible, naive simplicity from their hearers and to make them intelligent.
73. Consequently, he who has not understood the things written about the anger of God says: "For is it not ridiculous that, if a man, enraged at the Jews, destroyed them all from the least to the greatest and burned their cities with fire, so that they could not resist, the anger and indignation and threats of God, as they call Him, the Most High, have finally come to this, that He sent His own Son, and he suffered such things?" B But if the Jews, after they dared to rage so cruelly against Jesus, have utterly perished and lost their cities, this anger—which they had stored up for themselves—is what has brought these such great punishments upon them; for the judgment of God established against them is called "anger" in the native language of the Hebrews. But the Son of the great God suffered what He suffered willingly and for the sake of human salvation, as I have demonstrated to the best of my ability above. He adds afterwards: "But in order that the discourse may not be about the Jews alone (for I do not mean this), but rather about the whole of nature, as I promised, I shall declare more plainly the things already said." Who of moderate mind, aware of human weakness, would not be offended C when reading this in Celsus—who, with the same boastfulness with which he entitled his book, here promises that he will give an account of the whole of nature? Let us see, then, what those things are that he promises to say about the whole of nature and to declare more plainly.
74. Afterwards he accuses us at great length, because we say that all things were made by God for the sake of man. And he wishes, from the history of animals and the intelligence manifested in them, to show that all things were made no more for the sake of humans than for the sake of irrational animals. And it seems to me that he is like those D who, carried away by hatred, disparage in their enemies that which is praised in their own friends. For just as they, blinded by hatred, do not see that the evils which they think they are bringing against their enemies redound also upon their own friends; similarly, Celsus, with a confused mind, has not seen that he is also disparaging the philosophers of the Stoic school, who do not teach wrongly that man, and generally nature endowed with reason, excels animals devoid of reason.
and that it is for his sake that they say Providence has made all things. A Now, of course, those endowed with reason have a logical standing, in that they are primary, just as children being born are; while animals devoid of reason and inanimate things are, as it were, a peripheral accretion to the child. And I indeed believe that, just as in cities those who are in charge of provisions and the marketplace are in charge for the sake of nothing else but men, while dogs and other animals devoid of reason also enjoy the abundance, so Providence provides primarily for those endowed with reason, but it has followed from this that animals devoid of reason also enjoy the things that come into being for the sake of men. And just as he would be in error who said that the market-overseers do not provide any more for men than for dogs, since dogs also partake of the abundance of the provisions; so too by much more, Celsus and those who think the same things as he, commit impiety against the God who provides for those endowed with reason, by claiming that these things are not made for food for men any more than for plants, trees, shrubs, and thorns. B For he thinks, first, that "thunder, lightning, and rain are not the works of God," already more clearly espousing Epicureanism. Second, he says, that "even if one were to grant that these are works of God, they do not come about any more for us men for food than for plants, trees, shrubs, and thorns," giving these things over to chance and not to Providence, like a true Epicurean. For if these things are not useful to us any more than to plants, trees, shrubs, and thorns, it is clear that they do not come from Providence, for if they were from Providence, it would not be providing for us any more than for trees, shrubs, and thorns. Now, both of these claims are inherently impious; and it would be foolish to argue against such people, standing ready to refute the one who accuses us of impiety. For it is clear to everyone from what has been said, who is the impious one. Then he says, "Even if you say that these things grow for men (meaning plants, trees, shrubs, and thorns), why will you say that they grow for men any more than for animals devoid of reason, the most wild of them?" Let Celsus, then, clearly say that such a great variety of things growing on the earth is not the work of Providence, but that some chance collision of atoms has produced such qualities, and that by chance there are so many species of plants, trees, and shrubs that are similar to one another; and that no technical reason has brought them into being, nor does it have its origin from a mind that surpasses all admiration. C But we, the Christians, who are devoted solely to the God who created these things, know how to give thanks to the Creator of even these things, because He has prepared such a dwelling-place for us, and for our sake, for the animals that serve us: "He who causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and green herb for the service of men.">
to bring forth bread out of the earth; and that wine may gladden the heart of man, and his face be made cheerful with oil, and bread may strengthen man’s heart." And it is not surprising that God should have provided food even for the most ferocious of animals; for there have been philosophers who said that those animals were born to provide A exercise for the animal that possesses reason. And it has been said by one of our own wise men: "Do not say, What is this, or what is the purpose of this? For all things were created for their use. And do not say, What is this, or what is the purpose of this? For all things shall be sought out in their season."
76. Next to these things Celsus, wishing to show that Providence has not made the things that grow on the earth more for us than for the most ferocious of animals, says: "We indeed, with toil, great labor, and sweat, seek our food; but to animals, the earth produces all things without sowing or tilling." Yet he does not see that God wished to provide from every quarter material for the exercise of human intelligence, so that it might not remain idle and skilled in no arts; and that for this reason He created man in need, so that by his very penury he should be compelled to invent arts—some necessary for food, others for shelter. For it was better for those who were not going to seek out divine mysteries and study philosophy to be in need, in order that they might apply their intelligence to the discovery of arts, than to abound in all good things, leaving their intelligence neglected. B Indeed, from this lack of the necessities of life were born agriculture, viticulture, gardening, carpentry, and metallurgy, the makers of tools for those arts that serve the purpose of food. The lack of shelter introduced weaving—followed by carding and spinning—as well as building; and thus intelligence ascended even to architecture. The need for necessities has also caused goods produced in other regions to be carried by the help of nautical and navigational skill to those who do not possess them; so that for these reasons, too, one might wonder at Providence, which profitably made the rational animal needy, unlike the irrational ones. For the irrational animals have their food ready-made, since they have no capacity for arts. And they have natural shelter; for they are covered with hair, or feathers, or scales, or shells. And let these things be said by us in answer to the words quoted by Celsus: "We indeed, with toil, labor, and sweat, seek our food; but to animals, the earth produces all things without sowing or tilling."
77. Then, forgetting that his C stated purpose is to accuse Jews and Christians, he himself brings forward against his own opinion an iambic line of Euripides, and assailing it, he refutes it as being poorly phrased. The words of Celsus are as follows: "But if you should also oppose me with that line of Euripides, saying: Sun, night, and all things serve mortals,"
why should they serve us any more than they do ants and flies? For they too have the night as a time for resting, and the day arises for them to see and to act." A Hence it is evident that this opinion—that the sun and other heavenly bodies serve us—is not held only by certain Jews and Christians, but also by that person whom some call the "Theatrical philosopher," who had been a student of the physics of Anaxagoras. When he says that the things of this universe serve man, he is using a part to represent the whole, meaning all natures that partake of reason; just as he signifies these same things of the universe with the same rhetorical flourish when he says: *Sun, night, and all things serve mortals.* B Perhaps the tragic poet also used the word "sun" to designate the day, because the sun makes the day, to indicate that those things which are beneath the moon have the greatest need of day and night—for it is not the same with other things as it is with those on earth. Day and night therefore serve mortals, having been brought into existence for the sake of rational beings. If ants and flies also take advantage of this, performing their activities by day and resting by night, it does not follow that we should say the day and night came to be for the sake of ants and flies, nor that they were intended for nothing, but rather we must believe they came to be in accordance with Providence, for the sake of men.
Next, after these points, C he raises an objection against himself regarding what is said to be for the sake of men, namely, that irrational animals were created for their sake. He says: "If someone were to say that we are the masters of the animals, because we hunt and consume other animals, I would reply: Why should it not be that, on the contrary, we were created for them, since they also hunt and devour us? Especially when we need nets, weapons, the help of many men, and dogs, against those we hunt; D while to them nature has spontaneously given weapons, by which they easily subject us to themselves." Here you see how intelligence has been given to us as a great aid, and one superior to any weapon that the wild beasts seem to possess. Indeed, even if animals far surpass us in bodily strength, and although we are vastly inferior to some in size, we nevertheless gain mastery over the wild beasts through our intelligence. We hunt such great elephants, subjecting those that are capable of being tamed to our human gentleness; but as for those that are not so capable, or that do not seem to provide us with any use from being tamed, we place ourselves in such safety from them that, whenever we wish, we keep even such great beasts locked up; and when we are in need of food from their bodies, we kill them as easily as domesticated animals. The Creator, therefore, has subjected all animals to the rational animal and to his natural intelligence. And since [this is so], with regard to the case of dogs, for the sake of the flocks and herds...
or the stalls, or the guarding of houses, we use them; for other ends we use oxen, for example for agriculture A, or beasts of burden for carrying loads. Thus it is said that the lion, the bear, the leopard, the swine, and the species of animals of that kind, have been assigned to us for the exercise of the seeds of courage that are within us.
Then, addressing the race of men who perceive their own superiority, by which they excel the irrational animals, he says: "With regard to that which you say, that the power has been given to you by God to capture and slaughter wild beasts, we shall say that it is likely that, before there were cities and arts and such kinds of associations, and weapons and nets, men were seized and devoured by wild beasts, but wild beasts were by no means seized by men." B Observe here, regarding these points, that even if men do capture wild beasts, and wild beasts also seize men, there is a great difference between those who prevail by intelligence and those who prevail by savageness and cruelty, those who do not use intelligence to ensure they suffer nothing from wild beasts. But when he says, "before there were cities and arts and such kinds of associations," he seems to me to have forgotten what he said earlier: "that the world is uncreated and incorruptible, and only those things on earth suffer floods and conflagrations, and not all of these at the same time." As, therefore, the defenders of an uncreated world cannot indicate an beginning for it, so neither can they indicate a time when there were no cities and no arts had yet been discovered. But let it be conceded that he wishes here to accommodate himself to our principles, and has neglected what he said earlier: where is the proof from this that, in the beginning, men were captured and eaten by wild beasts, but not wild beasts by men? For if Providence founded the world and God presides over all things, C it was necessary that the first parents of men should have been guarded by superior natures, so that from the beginning there might be an intimate association of the divine nature with them. The Ascraean poet, understanding this, said:
For then there were common feasts and common dwellings For immortal gods and mortal men.
80. And the divine word according to Moses has introduced to us the first men hearing a diviner voice and oracles, and sometimes also seeing the visitations of the angels of God made to them. For it is also reasonable that in the beginning of the world the nature of men should have been helped to a greater extent, until, progress having been made in discernment and the other virtues, and the discovery of the arts, they D might be able to live by themselves, not needing to be always supervised and governed by those who, with a miraculous manifestation, presented themselves as ministers to the will of God. From these things, therefore, it follows that it is false that men were, in the beginning, captured and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were not [captured] by men. Hence, it is a consequence of these things that the claim that in the beginning men were seized by wild beasts is false.
A For God did not subject men to wild beasts, but gave men to be able to capture wild beasts, and [gave them] the arts that arise from intelligence against those beasts. For it was not without divine aid that men devised for themselves a defense against wild beasts, and a mastery over them.
B But the noble fellow does not see how many philosophers who introduce Providence and say that it does all things for the sake of the rational, he overthrows—as much as in him lies—[and] with them the useful doctrines [that agree] with the accord of the Christians in these matters toward philosophy; nor [does he see] how much harm to piety arises from acknowledging that there is no difference before God between a human, an ant, or a bee. He says: "If for this reason men seem to differ from irrational creatures, because they dwell in cities, and use a constitution, and magistracies, and governments; this is nonsense. For ants and bees do the very same things. Certainly, bees have a ruler; and there is order, and attendance, and wars, and victories, and slaughters of the defeated, and cities, and even suburbs, and shifts of work, and punishments against the lazy and the wicked; for they drive away and punish the drones."
C But even in these things he has not seen how that which is accomplished by reason and calculation differs from that which is produced by an irrational nature and the simple construction of its make-up. No one who resides in such creatures acknowledges the cause of these [actions]—for they do not possess it—but the most ancient, who is the Son of God and King of all things that are, has crafted an irrational nature that serves, as irrational [serves], those who have been counted worthy of reason. Cities, therefore, have arisen among men with many arts and the ordering of laws; and constitutions, and magistracies, and governments among men are either, in the proper sense, certain earnest moral states and activities so named, or they are those referred to in a more improper sense, for the sake of the, as far as possible, imitation of those [proper] ones. For looking toward those [original] ones, those who wisely acted as lawgivers established the best constitutions, and magistracies, and governments. D None of these is to be found among irrational creatures, even if Celsus applies the rational terms—and those assigned to rational beings—such as city, and constitutions, and magistracies, and governments, even to ants and bees. Concerning which, one must by no means accept the ants or bees, for they do not act with calculation; but one must marvel at the Divine Nature, which has extended a sort of imitation of rational things even to irrational ones. Perhaps it is to create shame for the rational ones, so that by watching ants...
of those things useful to themselves. And by observing bees, they are persuaded to obey a ruler, and they divide the useful works of the state for the safety of the cities. A And so that they may become more industrious and more frugal, instructions are provided. Not cities and suburbs—but hives, and the hexagonal works of the bees, and the succession of their labors, are for the sake of humans who have many needs for honey, both for the remedy of afflicted bodies and for pure nourishment. Nor is the action performed by the bees against the drones to be compared to the judgments against the idle and wicked in cities, and to the punishments against them; but, as I said before, the divine nature in these things is to be admired, while the human—being able to calculate the things concerning all beings and to adorn all things (as one working together B with Providence)—is to be commended; he performs the works not only of God's Providence, but also of his own.
Now, having spoken about the bees, in order that, as far as he is able, he might disparage the cities, and the political systems, and the authorities, and the governments, and the wars on behalf of the fatherlands of not only Christians, but of all humans, Celsus proceeds to deliver an encomium of ants. He does this so that, by the encomium regarding them, he might compare the human economy concerning food to the reason of the ants regarding C what is necessary, and might cast down the foresight of winter quarters, as though it possessed nothing more than the providence of the irrational ants in those matters where he thinks it exists. And whom among the simpler humans—and those unskilled in looking into the nature of all things—would Celsus not avert, as far as he is able, from helping those burdened by loads and sharing in their toils, when he speaks about ants, saying that they "help one another with their burdens when they see any that are D wearying"? For he who is in need of instruction through reason, and is in no wise a disciple of it, will say: "Since, therefore, we differ in nothing from ants when we help those weary from carrying heavy loads, why do we do such a thing in vain?" And while the ants, being irrational animals, would not be puffed up to think highly of themselves because their works are compared to those of humans, humans—able through reason to hear how their own love for others is treated as nothing—are, as far as Celsus’s words are concerned, not prevented from being harmed; nor does he see that, while he wishes to...
divert readers from Christianity, he also deters even those who are not Christians from having compassion for those who are burdened with the heaviest loads. He ought, had he truly been a philosopher sensitive to the social nature of man, not only not to have abolished along with Christianity those things which are useful among men, but also—if it were possible—to have cooperated with the good things common to both Christians and other men. And if ants store up the seeds they gather so that they do not sprout, but remain for their food throughout the year, one must not suppose that there is reason in the ants that is the cause of this; rather, it is all-mothering nature, which has adorned even the irrational animals so that they are not left without at least some trace of the reason that comes from nature. Unless, perhaps, Celsus—who wishes in many things to imitate Plato—intends by this to obscurely suggest that all souls are of the same kind, and that the human soul does not differ from that of ants and bees. This is the argument of one who drags the soul down from the vaults of heaven, not merely into the human body, but into the bodies of other animals as well. B Christians will not be convinced by this, having already grasped that the human soul has been made in the image of God, and seeing that it is impossible for a nature created in the image of God to have its characters utterly effaced, only to take on others—I know not whose images they might be—in irrational animals. And since he also says regarding dying ants that the living assign them a particular place, and that this serves as traditional graves for them: one must say that the more he speaks praises of the irrational animals, so much the more (even if he does not wish it) does he increase the work of the Word who adorned all things; C and he demonstrates the industry in men, which is able to decorate with reason even the advantages of the nature of irrational animals. But why do I say "irrational animals," since in Celsus’s judgment those things which by the common consensus of all are called irrational are *not* irrational? He does not think even ants are irrational—he who promised to speak about the whole of nature and made a boast of "truth" in the very title of his book. For he says the following about ants, as though they were conversing with one another: “And of course when they meet [one another], they converse; whence they do not err from their paths; for from heaven [the signal is given to them]…”
…” A for it is from heaven that one looks down upon the things on earth. But among rational beings, there is a community B of certain universal concepts, and speech, and the things that the words signify. For the act of conversing with another happens in voice, declaring some signified thing, and often they even report on what are called "accidental" things. To say that these things exist in ants—how would that not be the most ridiculous thing of all? And he is not ashamed of adding to these things—so that he might demonstrate the indecency of his own dogmas even to those who come after him—saying: “Come now, if someone were to look down from heaven onto the earth, what difference would he think there to be between the things done by us and the things done by ants and bees?” Would the one looking down from heaven onto the earth, according to his hypothesis, at the acts performed by humans and at the things happening among ants, be looking upon the bodies of humans and ants, and not perceive the rational governing power and the calculation being moved? And again, conversely, the irrational governing power moved irrationally by impulse and imagination together with some natural arrangement? But it is absurd that the one looking from heaven at the things on earth should wish to look upon the bodies of humans and ants from such a distance, and not see much rather the nature of their governing powers, and the source of their impulses, whether rational or irrational. But if he once sees the source of all impulses, it is clear that he would also see the difference, and the superiority of man, not only over the ants, but also over the elephants. For the one looking from heaven will see in the irrational creatures—however great their bodies may be—no other principle than (if I may so call it) irrationality; but in the rational ones, the reason that is common to humans with divine and heavenly things, and perhaps even to God Himself, above all, by Whom he has been named as having been made in the image of God; for the Word of God is the image of the God over all. Proceeding from these things, as if struggling to bring the race of men down further and to make them the equal of the irrational creatures—not wishing to leave out anything that is reported among the irrational creatures that shows something greater—he says that even the arts of sorcery belong to some of the irrational creatures (so that not even for this should men boast excessively, nor wish to have superiority over the irrational creatures), and he says these things: “But if humans flatter themselves also concerning sorcery, nonetheless, even in this regard, snakes and eagles are wiser. For they know many antidotes and remedies against evils, and indeed even the powers of certain stones, for the safety of their nestlings. If humans happen upon these, they think they possess D something wonderful.” And first, indeed, I do not know how [alt-version omitted]
A he has called the natural knowledge that seems to exist in animals by the name of magic—for this name is usually applied in a different sense—unless perhaps he wishes, like an Epicurean, to stealthily discredit the whole use of such things as though it lay in the profession of charlatans. But let it be granted to him that humans boast greatly of the knowledge of these things, whether or not they are charlatans; how are snakes on this account wiser than humans, when they use fennel to sharpen their eyesight and increase their agility, grasping this not as a natural property through reasoning, but by their physical constitution? Humans, however, do not come to such things through mere nature like snakes, but partly through experience, partly through reason, and sometimes through calculation and knowledge. And if eagles finding what is called the eagle-stone, for the protection of their B nestlings, bring it into their nests, why are they on this account wiser than humans, who have discovered, by reasoning and through experience, the natural remedy bestowed upon eagles? Further, let it be allowed that other health-giving remedies are known by animals. What, then, does this contribute to the conclusion that it is not nature, but reason, that discovers these things in animals? For if it were reason that discovered them, it would not have discovered only this one thing in snakes, and perhaps a second and a third, and something else in the eagle, and so on in the remaining animals; rather, it would have discovered as many as exist among humans. But now it is clear, from the fact that remedies have been assigned definitively to the nature of each animal, that it is neither wisdom nor reason that is in them, but a certain natural disposition toward those things that are conducive to the salvation of each creature, brought about C by the Word. Yet, if I wished to join battle with Celsus on these points, I would use the saying of Solomon from the Proverbs, which is as follows: “Four things are the smallest on the earth, but they are wiser than the wise: the ants, which have no strength, yet prepare their food in the summer; and the rock-badgers, a race not strong, yet they make their houses in the rocks; the locust has no king, yet it marches in ordered rank by a single command; and the lizard, supporting itself by its hands, and being easily captured, dwells in the fortresses of kings.” But I do not use these words as if they were clear; rather, I follow the inscription (for the book is inscribed *Proverbs*). I examine these things as riddles; for it is the custom of these men to divide into many categories those things which signify one thing on the surface but proclaim another in their deeper meaning, of which category the Proverbs are one. Hence it is written in our Gospels that our Savior said: “These things have I spoken to you in proverbs, but the hour is coming when no longer in proverbs...” D
shall I speak to you.” B It is not, therefore, the visible ants that are wiser than the wise, but those signified as if in the form of proverbs. The same must also be said concerning the other animals. But Celsus believes that the books of the Jews and Christians were written in a very simple and vulgar manner, and he thinks that those who allegorize them do so by forcing the intention of the writers. Let Celsus, then, be refuted also by these arguments, as he slanders us in vain; let his theory concerning snakes and eagles be refuted as well, which maintains that these are wiser than men. Wishing further in many words to deny that notions about the Divine are unique to the human race, and to assert that some among the irrational animals possess an understanding of God—a subject on which such disagreements have arisen even among the keenest minds of all men, Greeks and barbarians alike—he says: “But if man is thought to surpass other animals because he has reached divine concepts, let those who say this know that many of the other animals will also claim this for themselves. And quite reasonably; for what could one call more divine than to foreknow and declare the things that are to come? This, then, men learn from other animals, and especially from birds; and those who understand their indications are seers. If birds, then, and whatever other animals are prophetic, are taught by God to foreknow and to teach us through symbols, they appear to be that much closer to divine communion, and to be wiser and more beloved of God. C Furthermore, the wise men of mankind say that they have conversations among themselves, which are clearly holier than our own, and that they themselves perceive what is being said, and demonstrate by their actions that they perceive it, when, after having predicted that the birds said they were going somewhere or would do this or that, they show them departing to that place and doing what they predicted. And among elephants, nothing seems more observant of oaths or more faithful to divine matters, entirely, no doubt, because they possess knowledge of it.” Observe in these passages how many questions he brings together—questions debated among philosophers (not only of the Greeks, but also among the barbarians)—as if they were found facts, or as if they had learned the things about omens and other animals—from which certain divinations are said to occur to men—from some demons, and treats them as if they were agreed upon. For first of all, it is debated whether there is an art of augury, and divination through animals in general, or whether it does not exist; and secondly, among those who have accepted that divination through birds exists, there is no agreement on the cause of the manner of the divination; since some say that the movements are caused for the animals by certain demons or prophetic gods—the birds, for instance, into different flights and different cries—to movements of this sort or that D while others (the text is supplied from the Philocalia) hold that they possess their knowledge of these things.
therefore, should have proven through the foregoing arguments that he wished to demonstrate that brute animals are more divine and wiser than humans; he should have established at greater length that such divination exists, and after that, proven his defense more effectively. He should have analytically refuted the arguments of those who abolish such divinations, and analytically overturned the arguments of those who say that the movements for divination in animals occur because of demons or gods; and after these things, he should have established that the soul of brute animals is more divine. For thus we would have stood against his plausible contentions, assuming he had demonstrated a philosophical capacity regarding such great matters; we would have overturned the notion that brute animals are wiser than humans, and would have falsified the claim that they have more holy conceptions of the Divine than we do, and that they possess certain holy forms of communication with each other. A Now, however, the one who accuses us for believing in the God over all demands that we believe that the souls of birds possess more divine and clearer conceptions than humans. If this is true, birds have a clearer conception of God than Celsus does. And it is not surprising if they have a clearer conception than Celsus, who disparages man to such an extent. But indeed, as far as Celsus is concerned, birds possess greater and more divine conceptions, I do not say than us Christians or the Jews who use the same Scriptures as we do, but actually than the theologians among the Greeks, for they were humans. Therefore, according to Celsus, the species of birds supposedly gifted with divination has apprehended the nature of the Divine more than Pherecydes, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato. B And we ought indeed to have gone to these birds as teachers, so that, just as according to the assumption of Celsus they teach us by divination the things that are to come, so they might also deliver men from doubting about the Divine, by imparting the clear conception of Him which they have apprehended. Therefore, it surely follows for Celsus, who thinks that birds excel humans, to use the birds himself as teachers, and to use none of the others who have philosophized among the Greeks. But we must say a few things out of many regarding what is before us, exposing his ungrateful and false opinion toward the One who made him; for "man," even while being Celsus, "being in honor, did not understand," C wherefore he was not compared to the birds and the other brute animals which he imagines to be divine, and to others of their kind.
A But by yielding the primacy to those [animals] — even beyond the Egyptians, who worship irrational animals as gods — he has subjected himself, and as far as it depended on him, the whole human race, to brute animals, as though they were worse and inferior in their understanding of the Divine.
First of all, then, let us inquire whether or not there exists a faculty of divination through birds and the other animals believed to be prophetic; for the argument on both sides is by no means to be despised. On the one hand, it is compelling to reject such a thing, so that the rational being may not, instead of divine oracles, resort to birds, leaving the former behind; on the other hand, it is supported by the manifest efficacy testified to by many, who have been saved from the greatest dangers by having trusted in the divination through birds. For the present, however, let it be granted that augury exists, so that even granting this, I may show those who are preoccupied with such views that there is a great excellence in man over irrational animals, and [even] over those very animals that are deemed prophetic, and that such an excellence is in no way comparable to [the animals].
We must say then, that if there were some divine nature in them capable of foreknowing the future — and so rich in it that, out of its abundance, it could reveal future things to any man who wished it — it is manifest that they would have known their own affairs much sooner. And if they knew their own affairs, they would have taken care not to fly toward the very place where men had set traps and nets for them, or where archers, using the flying creatures as a mark, were letting fly their arrows at them. B And if eagles knew beforehand of the conspiracy against their fledglings — whether from snakes crawling up to them and destroying them, or from some men who take them, whether for sport or for some other need or medicinal purpose — they would certainly not have nested where they were destined to be plotted against. Simply put, not one of these animals would ever be caught by men, since they would be more divine and wiser than men.
But further, if birds contend with birds, as Celsus says, [and if we suppose they are] prophetic birds possessing a divine nature, and other irrational animals [likewise], and have conceptions of the Divine, and foreknowledge concerning things to come, and [revealed] such things to others, then neither would the sparrow of Homer have nested where a dragon was about to destroy it and its young, nor would the dragon, according to the same poet, have failed to guard against being taken by the eagle. C For the marvelous Homer in his poetry says of the former [bird] such things as these: "Then there appeared a great sign: a dragon, blood-red upon its back, terrible; and it was sent forth by the Olympian himself..." D and...
A From beneath the altar, it darted to the plane tree. There were the nestlings of a sparrow, helpless children, upon the topmost branch, cowering beneath the foliage: eight, and the mother was the ninth, she who bore the children. There, when he had eaten the piteous chirping young, the mother fluttered about, mourning her dear children; and he, winding about, caught her by the wing as she screamed. But when he had eaten the children of the sparrow and her also, the god who had shown him made him a sign to be wondered at; for the son of crooked-counseled Cronus made him a stone. And we, standing there, marveled at what had come to pass, how such dread portents of the gods had entered the hecatombs.
Concerning the second sign: For a bird came upon them, a high-flying eagle, on the left, shielding the people, carrying a blood-red, monstrous dragon, alive, still gasping; for it had not yet forgotten the fight. For, twisting backward, it struck the eagle on the breast by the neck; and it, in pain, cast it from it to the ground, and dropped it into the midst of the crowd; and it itself, crying out, flew off on the breath of the wind. And the Trojans shuddered when they saw the dappled serpent lying in the midst, a prodigy of Zeus who bears the aegis.
If then the eagle was prophetic, why was not the dragon also, since the augurs use this animal too? What, since the casting of lots is easily refuted, would not the claim that both are prophetic also be refuted? For the dragon, if it were prophetic, would not have avoided suffering these things from the eagle? And one could find ten thousand other such examples, which show that the animals do not have within them a prophetic soul; but, according to the poet and the majority of men, the Olympian himself "sent him forth to the light"; and according to some sign, Apollo also uses a hawk as a messenger; for the hawk is said to be the swift messenger of Apollo.
But according to us, certain base demons—and if I may so name them, Titanic or Gigantic ones, who have become impious toward the truly divine and toward the angels in heaven, and have fallen from heaven, and are wallowing about the denser and impure bodies on earth—having some power of discernment concerning future events, as they happen to be naked of earthly bodies; and being occupied with such work, wishing to lead the race of men away from the true God, they enter into the more rapacious and wilder animals, and others that are more crafty, and move them as they will, and when they will; or they turn the imaginations of such animals toward such-and-such flights and movements; so that men, being ensnared by the divination in irrational animals, may not seek the God who holds the whole together, nor examine pure piety toward God, but may fall in their reasoning to the earth, and to the birds, and snakes, and even to foxes and wolves. For surely, by men B C D
A skilled in these matters, it has been observed that clearer prognostications are obtained from these creatures; for demons do not possess as much power over the more tame animals as they do over others by reason of their affinity to malice—which, however, is not true malice in such animals, but something similar.
Hence, if I have admired anything else in Moses, I shall certainly declare this to be worthy of admiration: that, having considered the diverse natures of living creatures—whether he learned from God the things pertaining to them and the demons kin to each animal, or found it out by his own wisdom—in his legislation concerning animals, he declared all those things which the Egyptians and the rest of men consider mantic to be unclean, while the rest are, for the most part, clean. Thus, among the unclean in Moses are the wolf, the fox, the dragon, the eagle, the hawk, and things similar to these. And you will find, for the most part, not only in the Law but also in the Prophets, that this class of animals is taken as an example of the most wicked things; never is the name of a wolf or a fox used in a good sense.
It seems, therefore, that every species of demon has a certain affinity with every species of animal. And just as among men some humans are stronger than others, not necessarily because of their character, in the same way, some demons might be more powerful than other demons in things indifferent. Some, indeed, use these animals to deceive men, according to the will of him who is called in our Scriptures B the prince of this world, while others reveal things through a different species of animal. And even to the extent that demons are foul, so much so that even weasels are taken by some to reveal the future!
Judge for yourself which opinion is better: that the God over all and His Son move the birds and the other animals toward divination, or that those who move such animals—yet do not move men when men are present—are wicked demons, and as our holy Scriptures have named them, unclean. But if the soul of birds is divine because through them the future is foretold, how, then, shall we not say that the soul is divine—more so where omens are taken by men—through whom omens are heard?
Therefore, according to such people, that woman at the mill in Homer was divine, saying of the suitors: "Ultimates and finalities C they shall dine here now!" And she, indeed, was divine; but the great Ulysses, who found... [the text remains missing...]
D
A such a man friend of the Homeric Athena, was not divine, but understood the omens given from the divine miller-goddess and rejoiced, as the poet says: *And Ulysses, the divine, rejoiced at the omen.* Now observe, if birds have a divine soul and perceive God—or, as Celsus calls them, the gods—it follows clearly that we humans also, when we sneeze, sneeze from some divinity that is within us and a prophetic power regarding our soul. For this, too, is testified to by many; wherefore the poet says: *And he sneezed when he prayed.* Wherefore Penelope also says: *Do you not see that my son sneezed at all my words?* But the true Divine power does not employ irrational animals for the knowledge of future events, nor does it employ ordinary men; rather, it chooses the most holy and pure souls, which it inspires and makes into prophets. Wherefore, if anything else has been wonderfully stated in the law of Moses, such things are to be ranked with these: "You shall not practice augury, nor shall you interpret birds." And elsewhere: "For the nations which the Lord your God will destroy from your face, these shall listen to omens and divinations; but the Lord your God has not granted you such things." Then he continues: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers." And God, sometimes wishing to turn one away from augury through an augur, caused the Spirit to say in the augur: "For there is no augury in Jacob, nor divination in Israel. At the proper time it shall be told to Jacob and to Israel what God shall accomplish." Knowing these things and those similar to them, we wish to keep the commandment spoken mystically: "With all watchfulness guard your heart," so that B no demon may step upon our ruling faculty, nor any spirit of the adversaries turn our imaginative faculty toward that which it desires. We pray that there may shine in our hearts the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God, with the Spirit of God dwelling in our imaginative faculty and imaging for us the things of God; for "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." But one must know that to foreknow future events is not altogether a divine thing; for in itself it is indifferent, and falls to both the base and the noble. For instance, physicians foreknow certain things from medicine, even if they happen to be base in character. So also pilots, even if they happen to be wicked, foreknow the signs, the violence of winds, and changes in the atmosphere from a certain experience and observation; and surely no one would say they are divine on account of this, if they happen C to be wicked in character. Falsity, therefore, is what is said by Celsus, that they are divine—for it is, perhaps, and what will one say is more divine—concerning these things, that they are not by nature divine, but are indifferent, which falls to the bad as much as to the good. Thus physicians, no matter how wicked in their morals, foreknow certain things by their art. Likewise, ship captains, taught by a certain experience and observations, have signs by which they foresee the onsets of winds and the various changes of the air. Nor would anyone, on account of this, call them divine if they are evil-mannered. Falsity, therefore, is that statement of Celsus: "Who would say anything is more divine D concerning the fact that these things are not done for the sake of man—as neither for the lion, nor for the eagle, nor for the dolphin—but for the sake that this world as a work of God might be whole and complete; and for this reason all things have been measured."
Against Celsus, Book IV
A ...towards Celsus when he says: "What could one call more divine than to know and to foretell future events?" But it is also false that "many of the animals lay claim to divine notions," for none of the irrational animals have a notion of God. It is false, too, that "the irrational animals are closer to divine communion," since even those men who are still base, even if they progress to the highest level, are far from divine communion. Only those who are truly wise and sincerely pious are closer to the divine communion; such are the prophets among us, and Moses, to whom the Word has testified because of his great purity, saying: "Moses alone shall draw near to God, but the others shall not draw near." B How, then, is it not impious for him who charges us with impiety to say that "not only are the irrational animals wiser than the human nature, but also more beloved of God"? And who would not turn away in disgust, listening to a man say that a dragon, a fox, a wolf, an eagle, and a hawk are more beloved of God than the human nature? It follows for him to say that, if these animals are more beloved of God than men, it is clear that these animals are also more beloved of God than Socrates, and Plato, and Pythagoras, and Pherecydes, and those who he recently praised as theologians. One might indeed offer a prayer for him, saying: "If these animals are more beloved of God than men, may you become beloved of God along with them, and may you be made like those whom you consider more beloved of God than men." Let him not suppose this to be a curse; for who would not pray to become in every way similar to those he believes to be more beloved of God, so that he himself might become beloved of God, just as they are?
C Wishing the talk of the irrational animals to be holier than our own, Celsus does not attribute this story to ordinary people, but to the "prudent." But the prudent in truth are only the virtuous, for no base person is prudent. He speaks, therefore, in this manner, that "it is said that the prudent among men acknowledge that those animals have also their own talk, clearly holier than ours; and that they themselves know what is being said, and demonstrate by the deed that they are not ignorant of it, when, after they have foretold that the birds said they are going away somewhere, or will do this or that, they demonstrate them going away there and doing what they had already foretold." According to the truth, then, no wise man has recorded such things, and no wise man has said that the talk of the irrational animals is holier than that of men. But if, for the sake of examining Celsus's claims, we look at the logical consequences, it is clear that according to him, the talk of the irrational animals is holier than the solemn dialogues of Pherecydes, and Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato, and the philosophers; which is in itself not only absurd, but most of all irrational. Even if we were to believe that some learn by the indistinct sound of birds,
or are led to suppose they will go here or there or do this or that, we should reply that this is demonstrated to mankind by demons in a symbolic way, for the purpose of deceiving man and dragging his mind down from heaven and from God to the earth and to things even lower. A I do not know how Celsus heard of the oaths of elephants, and that they are more faithful to the Divine than we are, and possess a knowledge of God. For while I know that many and wondrous things are recounted concerning the nature of that animal and its gentleness, I am not aware that the matter of an elephant’s oath has been spoken of by anyone. Unless, perhaps, he calls their gentleness and the quasi-covenant they make with men, once they have been subjected to them, a "keeping of oaths"—which itself is false. For even if it is rare, it has indeed been reported that elephants, after their supposed gentleness, have become savage towards men and committed murders, and for this reason were condemned to be killed as no longer B useful. Since he proceeds after this to attempt to prove (as he thinks) that storks are more pious than men, by mentioning what is recounted concerning that animal—that it returns the care of its parents and brings food to those who begat it—it must be said that storks do not perform this action from a recognition of duty or from reasoning, but from nature, the nature which fashioned them having willed to put to shame human beings C through the example of irrational animals, so that they might be instructed about rendering thanks to those who begat them. If Celsus knew how much difference there is between doing these things by reason and doing them irrationally and by natural instinct, he would never have said that storks are more pious than men. Further, as if defending the piety of the irrational animals, Celsus brings in the Arabian animal, the Phoenix, which visits Egypt after many years, carrying its deceased father, D buried in a ball of myrrh, and placing it where the temple of the sun is. This has been reported, it is true; but even if it were accurate, it could still be a natural phenomenon; for divine Providence, having lavished a variety upon the creatures of the world, wished to present to men the diversity of the creation of the world, even extending to the birds; and so it brought into existence a unique creature, that you might admire, not the creature itself, but its Creator. Since, therefore, Celsus adds to all these things that, "Therefore, all things were not made for man, any more than for the lion, or the eagle, or the dolphin; but that this world, as being the work of God, might be complete and perfect in every respect; and for this reason all things have been measured,"
not with reference to one another, but as secondary to the whole, and so the world might be seen as the work of God. A And God cares for the whole, and providence never abandons this, nor does it become worse, nor does God turn toward it after a lapse of time, nor is He angry at humans, just as He is not at monkeys or flies; nor does He threaten these, each of which has received its own portion in its turn. Come, let us answer these points briefly. I think I have demonstrated from what was said before, how all things were made for man and for every rational being; for primarily for the sake of the rational being have all things been created. Celsus, therefore, may say that they were not made for man, just as they were not for the lion, nor for those he names; but we shall say that the Creator did not make these things for the lion, or the eagle, or the dolphin; but all things for the sake of the rational being, so that this world, which is the work of God, might be whole and perfect in all its parts. To this B statement, as well-said, we must assent. But God cares not only for the whole, as Celsus thinks, but beyond the whole, He cares especially for every rational being. And Providence will never abandon the whole; for even if a part should become worse, by reason of the rational being having sinned, it takes care to make a cleansing of it, and over time turns the whole back to itself. Further, He is not angry at monkeys or flies; but He inflicts punishment upon humans who have transgressed the natural foundations, and threatens them through the prophets, and through the Savior who visited the whole race of mankind; so that through the threat, those who hear might turn back, while those who have neglected the exhortatory words might pay penalties according to their desert, which it is fitting for God to impose according to His own will, which is advantageous for the whole, upon those who are in need of such and so laborious a treatment and correction. C But since the fourth volume has reached a sufficient length, let us stay our discourse here somewhere. May God grant, through His Son, who is God the Word, and wisdom, and truth, and justice, and whatsoever the holy Scriptures say in their theology concerning Him, that we may begin the fifth volume, for the benefit of those who will read it, and finish that one as well, with the visitation of His Word to our soul, well and not as a secondary matter.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS, BOOK FIVE
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS, BOOK FIVE
Not pursuing an unauthorized multitude of words, from which it is impossible to escape sin, we now begin the fifth book against the work of Celsus, holy Ambrose; but, as far as our power allows, we attempt to leave nothing of what has been spoken by him unexamined, especially in those matters where it might seem to some that he has intelligently accused us and the Jews. And if it were possible, along with our argument, to enter A into the conscience of anyone who happens upon his work, to pull out each arrow wounding anyone who is not entirely sheltered by the armor of God, and to apply a rational salve, healing the wound from Celsus, which makes those who pay attention to his words not to be healthy in faith; this we would have gladly done. But since this is the work of God, to invisibly visit according to His own spirit, and with the spirit of Christ, those whom He judges worthy of a visit; and since we, attempting to convince men through words and writings, have proposed to do everything to appear as workers needing no shame, rightly dividing the word of truth; it appears to us that one of all these things is, by faithfully obeying your commands, to try to the best of our ability to undo the things that seemed plausible to Celsus; come, let us set forth the things following Celsus's arguments, to which we have already responded (the reader will judge if we have overturned them), and let us bring forward our replies. May God grant that our discourse not be bare and devoid of divinity in this present task, so that the faith of those we pray to benefit might not be in the wisdom of men; but having received the mind of Christ from the only Father who gives it, and being helped toward the participation of the Word of God, we might pull down every height B raising itself against the knowledge of God, and the pride of Celsus rising against us and against our Jesus, and furthermore against Moses and the prophets; so that He who gives a word to those bringing good news with great power, and providing this to us also, and bestowing great power, might bring about faith in those who will read, in the word and power of God. C
5. Verily, to call angels, whose knowledge is beyond humans, to be scrutinized by their nature, is not reasonable. For if that hypothesis concerning knowledge of them, wonderful as it is and hidden, were to be grasped, this knowledge, having set forth their nature and those to whom each is appointed, will not allow anyone to dare to pray to the God who is sufficient for all, through the Savior of all, Jesus Christ, who is the Word, and wisdom, and truth, and whatever else the scriptures of the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus say of him. It is enough for us that God accounts the holy angels to be God, and that we do all things through Him for our sake, or as our disposition toward God, to the extent of human nature, mimicking their choice, and mimicking them in their imitation of God, and also toward His own Word, D as far as it is possible, not contrary to the clearer—
A understanding of the holy angels, but towards that which is daily hastened in clarity and order. As one who has not read our holy Scriptures, Celsus answers himself as if he were answering us, saying: "If we do not see that we say that the angels descend to benefit humans, and he says: 'As is likely, they might be called demons by us'—yet I do not see that the name of demons is either indifferent or among things either good or evil; or that which is good, such as that of gods, is attributed to idols or to evil demons or to animals; rather, knowledge of divine things is given to those who are truly divine and blessed; but this name of demons is attributed to those evil powers that are freed from a heavy body, which lead men astray and turn them from God and from the heavenly things to these earthly matters."
6. After this, he speaks as follows about the Jews: "First, it is a wonder to me regarding the Jews that, although they worship the angels and the heaven and those who are in it, they nevertheless judge that the sun, the moon, and the other stars—both fixed and wandering—which are certainly the most august and B powerful parts of the heaven, should not be worshipped at all." As if these could exist together, and the whole were God, and the parts of the whole were not God; as if it were fitting to treat with the highest honor those whom they say are blinded by some darkness of evil magic, or appear in the dreams of those in obscure specters; yet they think nothing of those most illustrious heralds of things above, those truly heavenly angels, who emit such clear prophecies for all, through whom also both rain, heat, clouds, and thunder (which they worship!), lightning, and fruits, and all produce are administered—through which God is revealed to them, the most manifest of all heralds, whom they hold to be truly heavenly angels, and for these reasons they hold them to be nothing. C In these things, Celsus seems to me to be confused and to have misinterpreted things through hearsay, or not to have written clearly for the Jews and those who associate with the Christians, since the Jews, following the Law, say by the voice of God: "There shall be no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any likeness of whatsoever things are in heaven above, or whatsoever are in the earth beneath, or whatsoever are in the waters under the earth. You shall not worship them, nor serve them," D and above all, there is God, who made heaven and all the rest. It is clear that those living according to the Law, worshipping the Creator of heaven, do not worship heaven, which is not held in honor by them by the Law of Moses. Just as they do not worship the sun, and the moon, and the stars, the ornaments of the world, so they take refuge from having this honor toward the heaven and the angels who are in it, obeying the law which says: "Do not lift up your eyes to heaven," [and so on].
Book Five
The argument now set forth for him must be overturned: "God, O Jews and Christians, and the Son of God, neither has come down nor will come down. But if you say it is certain angels, who do you say these are—gods, or some other kind? Some other thing, as is likely, the demons." To these things, it is not necessary to speak at length to Celsus, who is repeating himself (for these things have already been said to him many times before); for what we have said on this point will suffice. I will set forth a few things out of many, which we think are in agreement with those said before, but not having exactly the same meaning as those others; in which we will show that, by stating generally that no God or Son of God has come down to men, he also abolishes the things commonly believed by the many regarding the manifestation of God, and those things previously said by himself. For if it is said generally that no God or Son of God has come down, nor would come down, it has been truly said by Celsus; clearly, that which is for the existence of gods upon earth, having come down from heaven in order that they might either prophesy to men or heal through oracles, has been abolished; and neither the Pythian, nor Asclepius, nor any other of those considered to do such things, would be a God who has come down from heaven; either he would be a God, but one who has been allotted to dwell on the earth, and as it were, a fugitive from the place of the gods; or he would be one of those not having the power to participate in the divine things there; or Apollo and Asclepius and as many as are believed to do anything upon the earth are not gods, but rather some demons much worse than those who among men are wise and ascend to the arch of heaven on account of their virtue. See, then, that he who did not admit throughout the whole book that he was an Epicurean, by wishing to abolish our doctrines, is convicted of defecting to Epicurus. It is time for you who read the words of Celsus, and who agree with the things proposed, either to abolish the idea of God visiting, providing for individual men, or by positing such a thing, to prove the word of Celsus false. If, therefore, you abolish Providence entirely, you will prove his words false, in which he posits gods and Providence, so that you might say these things are true; but if you posit Providence nonetheless, as not agreeing with Celsus when he says that neither God nor the Son of God has come down or is coming down to men, why then will you not examine carefully, from those things said by us regarding Jesus and the things prophesied about Him, who rather ought to be considered the God and Son of God who has come down to men—the Jesus who has managed and done so much, or those who, under the pretext of oracles and divinations, do not correct the morals of those being healed, and furthermore have departed from the sincere and pure worship that ought to be paid to the Maker of all things?
A And if, since the Jews or Christians would have replied regarding those who descend to men that they are angels, he asks, “If you say there are angels, who do you say these are? Are they gods, or some other kind of being?”—then he again leads the argument forward as if they had answered that they were something else, namely, demons—come now, let us consider this too. We acknowledge that we speak of angels as “ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for the sake of those who shall inherit salvation;” B at times ascending to offer the petitions of men in the purest places of the world, which are in the heavens, or even in places purer than these, above the heavens; and at other times descending from there, bringing back to each, according to their merit, some of the things they have been ordered to administer to those who receive the benefits. We have learned to call these “angels” from their work, and we find that, because they are divine, they are sometimes called “gods” in the sacred Scriptures; but not so that we might be ordered to worship and adore those who serve us and bring us the things of God, instead of God. For every petition, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving must be sent up to the God who is over all, through the high priest—the living Word and God—who is above all angels. We shall indeed pray to the Word himself, and we shall intercede with him, and we shall offer thanks to him, and we shall also pray to him, if we are able to grasp the distinction between the proper and improper use of prayer. C For it is not reasonable to call upon angels without having attained knowledge of them that surpasses human understanding. But even if the knowledge regarding them—which is a certain marvelous and secret thing—were to be grasped, this knowledge, by revealing their nature and the tasks to which each is assigned, would not permit one to be so bold as to pray to anyone other than the God over all, who is sufficient for all, through our Savior, the Son of God, who is the Word, and wisdom, and truth, and whatever else the Scriptures of God’s prophets and the apostles of Jesus say regarding him. It is enough for the holy angels of God to be propitious to us and to do everything on our behalf, that our disposition toward God be such as human nature is capable of, imitating their own intent, as they themselves imitate God, and that our understanding of his Son the Word be, as far as is possible for us, not contrary to the clearer
A understanding of him from the holy angels, but rather speeding day by day toward that clarity and precision. For Celsus, not having read our sacred Scriptures, answers himself as if it were from us, that we claim angels—the ones who descend for the benefit of humans—are some kind of race other than gods, and he says, “as is likely, they would be called demons by us.” He does not see that the name of "demons" is by no means neutral—as is the case with "humans," among whom some are noble and others base—nor is it noble, like the name "gods," which is attributed by those who have known the things of God not to base demons, or to statues, or to animals, but to those who are truly more divine and blessed. The name "demons" is always applied to those base powers, freed from a thicker body, which deceive and distract humans, and drag them down from God and the things above the heavens to matters here below.
Post these things, he puts forward this assertion regarding the Jews: “First, therefore, it is worth marvelling at the Jews, if they worship the heaven and the angels in it, but pass over the most majestic and powerful parts of it, the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, both fixed and wandering. As if it were possible B that the whole is God, but its parts are not divine; or as if people, blinded somewhere in darkness by incorrect sorcery, or dreaming of appearing through dim spectres, should duly worship them, while the most manifest and brilliant heralds to all, through whom the heaven reveals God—the truly heavenly angels—are considered to be nothing.” It seems to me that Celsus is muddled in these remarks, and has written from misunderstandings of things he did not know; for it is clear to those who scrutinize the affairs of the Jews, and connect the affairs of the Christians to them, that the Jews, following the Law, say in the person of God: “There shall be no other gods for you besides me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor any likeness of all that is in the heaven above, and all that is on the earth below, and all that is in the waters under the earth; you shall not worship them, nor shall you serve them.” They worship nothing else but the God over all, who made the heaven and all the rest. It is clear that those who live according to the Law, while worshipping the One who made the heaven, do not join the heaven itself in their worship of God. Moreover, no one who serves the Law of Moses worships the angels who are in heaven; and in the same way that they do not worship the sun, and the moon, and the stars—the ornament of the heaven—they refrain from worshipping the heaven and the angels in it, obedient to the law that says: “And do not, having looked up toward the heaven, C D
A and having seen the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, being led astray, worship them and serve them; which the Lord thy God allotted to all the nations.” But besides this, because the Jews are supposed to consider the heaven to be God, he brings this forward as an absurdity, reproaching those who indeed worship the heaven, but not also the sun and the moon and the stars, because the Jews do this, as if it were possible that the whole should be God, but its parts not divine; and he seems to call the heaven the whole, and the sun and the moon and the stars its parts. Now, neither the Jews nor the Christians indeed clearly say that the heaven is God. But let it be granted, according to him, that it is said by the Jews that the heaven is God; and let the sun, and the moon, and the stars also be parts of the heaven (which is not entirely true; for not even the animals and plants upon the earth are parts of the earth). Whence, then, is it true, even according to the Greeks, that if some whole is God, then its parts are also divine? For the Stoics B clearly say that the whole world is God, and the followers of Plato the second, and some of them the third. Are then, according to such people, since the whole world is God, its parts already divine, so that not only human beings are divine, but also all the irrational animals, being parts of the world, and in addition to these, even the plants? But if rivers, and mountains, and seas be parts of the world, then because the whole world is God, are the rivers and the seas also gods? But the Greeks will not say even this; but they might say that those presiding over the rivers and seas (whether they are demons, or gods, as they name them) are these gods; whence also the universal claim of Celsus becomes false, even according to the Greeks who introduce Providence, that if any whole is God, its parts are altogether divine; and it follows from Celsus' argument that if the world is God, everything in it is divine, being parts of the world; and according to this, animals will be divine. C And God, and the world, and the stars, and the earth, and the mind above all things in the ether. “Determining then to produce a most beautiful work, he made this a begotten God, never to be corrupted by any other cause, except by the God who had composed it, if ever he should wish to dissolve it. But indeed it is not of the good to desire to move toward the destruction of a work that is most beautiful; it remains therefore, being such as it is, incorruptible and imperishable and blessed; and it is the best of begotten things, since it was generated by the best cause.” But let these things be sufficient for us in this regard, and let the things said concerning visible and begotten gods have an end. “And here gods, and the world is God, as it is customary to say, third, and if as far as the moon, each is God.” Whence also the universal of Celsus, whence altogether, the universal of Celsus is false, that if any whole is God, its parts are not altogether divine.
A flies, and gnats, and worms, and every kind of serpent; but also the kinds of birds and fishes. These things, not even those who say that the world is God will affirm. But the Jews who live according to the law of Moses, even if they do not know 20 how to interpret what is said cryptically in the law, or anything it indicates that is hidden, will neither say that the heaven is God, nor the angels. Since, however, we say that he has become confused by certain mishearings, come, let us also clear these up, as far as we are able, and demonstrate B that, while Celsus thinks it is Judaic to worship heaven and the angels in it, such a thing is not Judaic, but is a transgression of Judaism; just as is the worship of the sun, and moon, and stars, and also of idols. You will find, indeed, especially in Jeremiah, the Word of God through the prophet blaming the Jewish people for worshipping such things and sacrificing to the queen of heaven and all the host of heaven. The writings of Christians, accusing those among the Jews who sinned, also show C that when God abandoned 21 that people because of certain sins, these things were committed by them. For in the Acts of the Apostles it is written concerning the Jews: “Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets: Did you offer to me slaughtered beasts and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? And you took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, and the types which you made D to worship them.” But in Paul, who was accurately instructed in the things of the Jews, and who later became a Christian from a paradoxical appearance of Jesus, such things were said in his Epistle to the Colossians: “Let no one disqualify you, wanting in humility and worship of the angels, things which he has not seen, walking idly puffed up by his fleshly intelligence; and not holding fast the Head, from whom the whole body, through joints and ligaments being supplied and knit together, grows with the increase of God.” These things Celsus, having neither read nor learned, I know not how he has made the Jews out as not acting illegally when they worship the heaven and the angels within it. Further, he is also 25 confused, and not having looked carefully at the things regarding this place, he thought that the Jews were induced by the incantations in magic and sorcery—from certain phantoms appearing to those who chant according to the incantations—to worship the angels in heaven; not understanding that even this was against the law for those who did perform such things, which says: “Do not follow ventriloquists, and to the enchanters you shall not [*] resort, to be defiled by them; I am the Lord your God.” It was necessary, therefore, either—
A—altogether not to refer these things to the Jews, who observe the law and are described as living according to the law; or, if he did refer them, to show that those who commit such acts are lawless Jews. But again, just as those who practice religion in the dark and by means of sorcery, blinding themselves and dreaming through dim phantoms, worshiping those who are said to draw near and doing such things, are lawless; so too are those who sacrifice to the sun, the moon, and the stars. And it was not consistent to say that Jews preserve the law while at the same time worshiping the sun, moon, stars, and angels. B If we must defend ourselves regarding why we do not worship angels, nor the sun, moon, and stars—nor even the gods the Greeks call manifest and sensible—we shall say that even the law of Moses understands that these were assigned by God to all the nations under the heaven, but not to those who were chosen as a special lot for God, beyond all the nations upon the earth. It is written, therefore, in Deuteronomy: “And lest, looking up to heaven and seeing the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, you be deceived and worship them, and serve them, which the Lord your God has assigned to all the nations under all heaven. But the Lord your God has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be to Him a peculiar people, as it is this day.” C The Hebrew people, therefore, who were called by God to be a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a peculiar people, concerning whom it was declared to Abraham by the voice of the Lord coming to him: “Look up to heaven, and count the stars, if you can number them,” and He said to him, “So shall your seed be”—those who had the hope of coming to be as the stars in heaven were not to worship those things to which they were destined to be assimilated through understanding and keeping the law of God. For it has been said to them: “The Lord our God has multiplied you, and behold, you are today as the stars of heaven in multitude.” And in Daniel also, such things are prophesied regarding those who shall rise again: “And at that time your people shall be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and—
some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that understand shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and out of the just of the many as the stars A unto eternities and beyond. Hence also Paul, having taken this in his discourse concerning the resurrection, says: “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.” It was not, therefore, reasonable that those who had been taught to step beyond all created things in a magnificent manner, and to hope for the most excellent rewards from God for a life well-lived, and who had heard, “You are the light of the world,” and, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven,” or who were striving to possess that bright and undefiled wisdom, or had already received it as being the effulgence of everlasting light, should be struck with amazement at the sensible light of the sun, and moon, and stars to such a degree that, because of the sensible light of those bodies, they should consider themselves to be somewhere below, while possessing such an intellectual light of knowledge, and the true light, and the light of the world, and the light of men, and should worship them; whom if it were necessary to worship, it should not be on account of the sensible light that is admired by the many, but rather on account of the intellectual and true light; if indeed the stars in heaven are rational and virtuous B beings, and have been illuminated by the light of knowledge by that wisdom which is the effulgence of everlasting light. For their sensible light is the work of the Creator of all things, but the intellectual light they perhaps possess, and it has come about from their own free will. It is therefore not reasonable—even if, “It is not necessary for it to be worshipped even by him who sees and understands the true light, by participation in which these also have been illuminated, nor by him who sees God, the Father of the true light, concerning whom it has been well said, ‘God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.’” And just as those who, because the light is sensible and celestial, worship the sun and moon and stars, would not worship a spark of fire or a lamp upon the earth, seeing the incomparable C superiority of those things which are thought worthy of worship compared to the sparks and lamps, [so we too...] D
A are aware how God is light, and how the Son of God is “the true light that lightens every man coming into the world,” and understanding also how He says, “I am the light of the world”; these would not reasonably worship what is, as it were, a small spark—that is, the sun, moon, and stars—in preference to God, the true light. And we do not dishonor such great works of God, nor do we say, like Anaxagoras, that the sun, moon, and stars are a “red-hot mass,” when we speak thus about the sun, moon, and stars; but rather, perceiving the divinity of God which excels in ineffable superiority, and [knowing] that His Only-begotten also excels the rest, we are persuaded that the sun, moon, and stars themselves pray to the God over all through His Only-begotten. Therefore, we judge that we ought not to pray to those who pray; since they themselves wish to send us rather to the God to whom they pray, than to draw us to themselves, or to divide our faculty of prayer away from God and toward themselves. B I will also use this example regarding them, fitting for the place: Our Savior and Lord, having once heard “Good teacher,” sending the one who said this to His own Father, says: “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except one, God the Father.” If, then, the Son of the love of the Father spoke this reasonably, as being the image of the goodness of God, how much more reasonably would the sun say to those who worship it: “Why do you worship me? You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve,” whom I, and all who are with Me, worship and serve. And even if one be not of such C greatness, nevertheless, let such a one pray to the Word of God, who is able to heal him; and much more to His Father, who also sent His Word to the righteous of former times, and healed them, and delivered them from their corruptions. God, then, according to His kindness, descends to men, not locally, but through providence; and the Son of God is with His own disciples, not only then, but always, fulfilling the words: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” And if a branch cannot bear fruit unless it abides in the vine, it is clear that the disciples of the Word, who are the intelligible branches of the true vine—the Word—cannot bear the fruits of virtue unless they remain in the true vine, the D Christ of God, who is also with us locally down upon the earth, who, being with those everywhere who are attached to Him, is even now with those who do not know Him, everywhere. For this is the Gospel…
according to John, revealing through the person of John the Baptist, who says: “There stands one among you, whom you do not know; He is the one who comes after me.” But it is absurd, when the One who fills heaven and earth, and who says, “Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord,” is with us and close to us—for I believe Him when He says, “I am a God near at hand, and not a God far off, says the Lord”—to seek to pray to the sun, or the moon, or any of the stars, which do not reach unto all things. And let it be granted, that I may use the very words of Celsus, that the sun, and moon, and stars are those who prophecize rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunder; if, then, they do prophecize such great things, should we not rather worship and adore the God for whom they act as ministers in prophesying, than the prophets themselves? Let them even keep predicting lightning, and fruits, and all generations, and store up all such things; yet we will not for this reason worship those who are themselves worshipping—just as we do not worship Moses and those after him who, according to God, prophecized things far better than rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunder, and lightning, and fruits, and all sensible generations. But even if the sun, moon, and stars have the power to prophecize prophecies better than rains, not even so shall we worship them, but rather the Father of the prophecies that are in them, and the Word of God who is their minister. But let them even be His heralds and truly heavenly angels; how, then, should the God who is proclaimed and announced by them not be worshipped by us much more than His heralds and angels?
[We are accused of holding] the stars to be nothing. Concerning these, we confess that they themselves are awaiting the revelation of the sons of God, being subjected for the present to the vanity of material bodies on account of Him who subjected them in hope. And if Celsus had read the countless other things which we say concerning the sun, and the moon, and the stars—such as, “Praise Him, all you stars and light,” and, “Praise Him, you heavens of heavens”—he would not have made a pronouncement against us that we claim such great things, which magnificently praise God, are nothing. Nor does Celsus know this: “For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope.”
For the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. And in these words let our defense for not worshipping the sun, moon, and stars reach its conclusion. Let us set forth the next passage as well, so that after this we may, with God’s help, say what the light of truth suggests to us. He says then: “It is foolish of them also to think that, when God like a cook brings in the fire, the whole rest of the creation will be roasted, but they alone will remain, not only those who are alive at that time, but also those who died long ago, rising from the earth in those very bodies; this is A a hope literally fit for worms. For what human soul would still desire a body that has rotted? And this doctrine is not even common among some of the Christians themselves, and they pronounce it to be extremely abominable, detestable, and at the same time impossible. For what kind of body, once completely corrupted, is able to return to its original nature, and to that selfsame primary composition from which it was dissolved? Having nothing to answer, they flee to the most absurd refuge, that all things are possible to God. But God cannot do shameful things, nor does He will what is contrary to nature; nor, if you were to desire something abominable according to your own wickedness, would God be able to do it, and one must believe immediately that it will happen. For God is not the leader of a faulty desire, nor of a wandering disorder, but of a right and just nature. He might indeed be able to provide eternal life for the soul, but corpses, says Heraclitus, are more fit to be cast out than dung. Therefore, to declare that flesh, full of things which are not even decent to mention, is eternal—God will neither wish nor be able to do this, because He is the very Reason of all things that exist, and therefore He can do nothing contrary B to reason, nor contrary to Himself.”
Observe, then, from the beginning, how he tries to bring into ridicule and calumniate the firing of the world—a doctrine introduced by those among the Greeks who did not philosophize in a way to be despised; and he wishes to introduce our views regarding the conflagration as if we were making God a cook. He fails to perceive that, just as it seemed fit to some of the Greeks (who perhaps received from the most ancient nation of the Hebrews that a lustral fire is brought upon the world), it is likely that this fire serves also for each of those who are in need of judgment and healing through fire, burning and not consuming those who do not have material that needs to be destroyed by that fire, but burning and consuming those who have built with wood, hay, or stubble in the building—metaphorically speaking—of their actions, words, and thoughts.
A The divine words say that the Lord will visit each of those in need like the fire of a refiner and like the soap of those who wash, because of the matter which is, as it were, base and molten, mingled with their wickedness—they being in need, I say, of fire, as if refining those mingled with copper, tin, and lead. And this, if one wishes, one may learn from the prophet Ezekiel. That we do not say that God brings the fire as a cook, but as God the benefactor of those needing difficulty and fire, the prophet Isaiah will also bear witness, in whom it is written to be spoken to a certain sinful nation, that: "Thou hast coals of fire, sit upon them; these shall be thy help." The word, acting appropriately for the multitudes B who will read the Scripture, speaks with wisdom in a hidden way of the gloomy things, for the fear of those who cannot otherwise turn back from the nature of their sins; nevertheless, even thus, he who watches will find manifest the end which is brought upon those who suffer through the gloomy and painful things. It suffices for the present to quote from Isaiah: "For the sake of my name I will show thee my anger, and I will bring my glorious things upon thee, that I may not destroy thee." We have indeed been compelled to hint at things not suitable for those who believe more simply and are in need of a simpler economy in words, so that we may not seem to leave the accusation of Celsus unrefuted, who says: "After God has cast in the fire as a cook." From what has been said to those who hear more intelligently, it is manifest how one must also respond to: "The rest of the whole race will be roasted, but they alone will remain." It is no wonder if those C among us who are not understood by the Word—called the foolish things of the world, and the ignoble, and the despised, and the things that are not—because it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe in him, since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through wisdom—not being able to articulate the passages, nor wishing to have leisure for the investigation of Scripture, even though Jesus says, "Search the Scriptures." And such are the things they have supposed concerning the fire brought by God, and concerning what will happen to those who have sinned. And perhaps, just as it is fitting for children that things be said to them suited to their infancy in order, as to children who are quite young, to turn them back to what is better; so, for those whom the Word has named the foolish things of the world, and the ignoble, and the despised, this ready-to-hand interpretation concerning punishments is fitting, as they do not contain another conversion than that which is through fear and the imagining of punishments, and the abstaining from many evils. The Word, therefore, [implies that the rest of] those who are untasted of the fire and the...
A punishments, says, remain for those who have been purified to the highest degree in their doctrines and morals and in their ruling faculty. But those who are not such, and who, according to their deserts, require the dispensation of punishment by fire, will be in these for a certain end, which it is fitting for God to inflict upon those who have been made in His image and have lived in a manner contrary to the will of the nature that was made in His image. And these things are also against the statement of Celsus, “The rest of the whole race will be roasted, but they alone will remain.” Then, following these things, having misheard either the sacred scriptures or those who have not understood the sacred scriptures, he says B that it is said by us that we alone will remain at the time of the cleansing fire that shall be brought upon the world, not only those who are alive at that time, but also those who died long ago. He did not suppose that what was said by the Apostle of Jesus was spoken with a certain hidden [(59)] wisdom: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” 46 But it was his duty to observe what he who says these things understood, as he was by no means dead [(60)], but separated himself from those [who were], and his fellows from himself, saying after [the words], “And the dead shall be raised incorruptible, C and we shall be changed.” For the confirmation that the Apostle wrote, having understood such things, I have quoted from the first Epistle to the Corinthians; and I shall also quote those from the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, in which Paul says, as one living and watching, and being other than those who have fallen asleep, such things as these: “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep; for the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.” 47 Then again, following these things, knowing that there were others who were dead in Christ beside himself and those like him, he adds, saying: “The dead in Christ shall rise first; then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.” D Since he has further mocked the resurrection of the flesh—which is preached indeed in the Churches, but is understood more clearly by the more intelligent—and it is not necessary to set forth again his language once stated, come, let us also, for the sake of those who are still infants, and are tossed to and fro, and are carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness [(61)] unto the wiles of error, 48 set forth, so far as we are able, and present a few things according to the needs of the readers. Therefore, neither do we, nor do the divine scriptures, say that they who have long ago died depart from the earth in the same flesh, without any change
for the better. This is a pure calumny of Celsus. For we read in the Scriptures many things concerning the resurrection, but such as are worthy of God. For the present, it shall suffice to cite that passage from Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says: "But some man will say: How do the dead rise again? or with what manner of body shall they come? Senseless man, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die first. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a naked grain, as of wheat, or of some of the others. But God giveth it a body as he will, and to every one of the seeds a proper body" A. See how he says here that what is sown is not the body that is to be; but that since the naked seed is sown and cast into the ground, and God bestows a proper body upon each of the seeds, a certain sort of resurrection takes place; just as an ear of corn sprouts from certain things, as from mustard; or from others, a tall tree, as from an olive pit or similar fruits. God, therefore, gives a body, as it hath pleased Him, to those who are as it were sown in death, and who, when the opportune time has arrived, shall receive from what was sown that body which God has willed to clothe each with according to their merits. And the Scripture teaches at length what is the difference between the body that is, as it were, sown, and that which, as it were, rises from it, saying: B "It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption; it is sown in ignobility, it shall rise in glory; it is sown in infirmity, it shall rise in power; it is sown an animal body, it shall rise a spiritual body." Let him who is able understand what was meant by the one who said: "As the earthly is, such are the earthy; and as the heavenly is, such are the heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly." Although the Apostle desired to hide the things that are secret in this place, as being less suitable for the simpler sort and for the common ear of those who are led to a better life through faith, yet he was compelled a little later, so that we might not misunderstand his words, after saying "let us bear the image of the heavenly," C to add: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption possess incorruption." Then, knowing, as one who was to leave behind written records for those after him, the secret and mystical import of this question, he adds what is usually said when dealing with deeper and more hidden matters that are fittingly concealed from the many: "Behold, I tell you a mystery." Just as it is also written in Tobit: "It is good to hide the secret of a king: but honorably to reveal the works of God," when D
it is done prudently, it is beautiful. Our hope, therefore, is not of worms, nor does our soul desire a rotting body; yet if it has need of a body for local transitions, it knows, provided it has studied wisdom according to the text: "The mouth of the just shall meditate wisdom," it knows, I say, that a "terrestrial house" is being destroyed, in which the tent is; and that the tent, in which the just "groan, being burdened," does not desire "to be unclothed, but to be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life." For since the nature of a body is corruptible, it is necessary that this corruptible tent "put on incorruption," and that its other part, being mortal and subject to the death that attends sin, "put on immortality," so that, when the corruptible "puts on incorruption" and the mortal puts on immortality, then that which was long ago foretold by the prophets shall come to pass: the destruction of the "victory" of death, which as victor had subjected us to itself, and of the "sting" from it, by which, pricking the soul not entirely fortified, it causes therein the wounds from sin.
But since our statements concerning the resurrection have been explained, as far as was possible, in part for the present (for we have composed a treatise on the resurrection in other works, having examined the matters concerning this subject at greater length), it is now right to refute the cavils of Celsus, A who neither understood what was written by us, nor was able to judge that one ought not to deem the intention of those wise men to be represented by those who promise nothing in the way of faith beyond what is brought to the Christian doctrine. Let us show, therefore, that men by no means contemptible for the sake of rational theory and dialectical investigations have spoken of things very incongruous; and if there be things that deserve to be mocked as base and "old wives' tales," these belong rather to them than to us.
The philosophers of the Stoic B school say that according to a cycle, this is what is currently the case, and there is nothing impossible in this; and that we, after having died, shall return again, after certain cycles of time, to the form in which we now exist. For he also knows—having learned this from barbarian philosophy—of the purification through fire of those who have lived wickedly, which the Stoics later called "conflagration"; according to which they dogmatize that even the individual quality will rise again, treating of that very thing—the resurrection.
And the common discourse, having proceeded so far, and the common nature having become greater and more abundant, having finally dried up all [things] and drawn them into itself in the all-essence, becomes [what it was], having returned to the first-spoken reason and to that resurrection which makes the "great year," through which from itself alone to itself every C thing is restored. And when this is so, it is clear that it is not impossible that we, too, after our death, should, after periods of time have elapsed, be restored to the configuration in which we now are. [alt-version omitted] D Better is the opinion of Chrysippus, whom Cicero says props up the porch of the Stoics, who in the books he wrote concerning Providence, when he was speaking about the renovation of the world, brought in these things: "The stars are by nature fiery, and for this reason they are nourished by the vapors of the earth, the sea, and the waters, which are raised by the sun as it warms the fields and from the waters; by which the stars, and the whole ether, being refreshed and renewed, pour forth the same things and draw them back again into the same; so that nothing, or only a very little, perishes, which the fire of the stars and the flame of the ether consumes. From which event our people think it will come to pass, about which Panaetius was said to hesitate, that in the end the whole world would burn, when, the moisture being consumed, neither could the earth be nourished, nor the air return—which could not occur once all water was exhausted—so that nothing would be left except the fire, from which again, by the divine soul, the renovation of the world would be made."
A This occurs, they say, when all water has been consumed, and next in order the restoration is achieved. For, having returned through the sequence from which it began to order things in the same way, according to reason—it again makes the same progression, such periods occurring from eternity without ceasing. They declare the thing itself to be precisely the same as those before it. The world will be shaped and nourished, and it will be doubled and nourished, in the previous fashion, with its ornamentation having everything exactly the same as in the previous arrangement. Those of them who felt shame at this doctrine have said that a slight and very small change occurs in each period compared to those in the period before it. These men say that in the next period such things will be, and that Socrates will again be the son of Sophroniscus, an Athenian, and Phaenarete, having married Sophroniscus, will again B give birth to him. Even if they do not use the term "resurrection," they reveal the reality: that Socrates, beginning from the seeds of Sophroniscus, will rise again, and in the later period will be shaped as Phaenarete’s child, and having been brought up at Athens, he will practice philosophy; as if the previous philosophy were also rising again, and being exactly the same as the previous one. And Anytus and Melitus will rise again, again as accusers of Socrates, and the council of the Areopagus will condemn Socrates. And what is more ridiculous than this, Socrates will put on the same garments as in the previous period, in the same poverty, and will be in the same city, Athens, as in the previous period. And Phalaris will again play the tyrant; and his brazen bull will bellow with the voice of the men who have been enclosed within it, who were completely identical to the people of the previous period. And Alexander of Pherae will again be tyrant, having the same cruelty as in the previous one, and will condemn the same people as he did the former ones. And why must I list the doctrine concerning such things that was philosophized by the Stoics, and which is not ridiculed by Celsus, but perhaps even held in high regard; since Zeno seems to him wiser than Jesus? And those who follow Pythagoras and Plato also hold such doctrines.
C "After," he says, "the common reason and common nature have progressed to such a point, having increased with a new magnitude and new growth, they have finally dried up the universe and gathered it into themselves; it is established in a full and complete substance; for it has returned to that first, as it is called, reason, and to that resurrection which brings about the great year: in which year, it is customary for the restoration to occur again from that one source. Having been called back to that state, in the same order in which it had already begun to ornament the world in a similar way, it again institutes the same disposition and administration of things, as reason demands, such conversions returning from all eternity and without any break." D You may see what Eusebius has in book xv, chapter 15, from the Epitome of Arius Didymus.
(76), even if they seem to maintain the world as incorruptible, still they fall into similar things (77). For with the stars taking on the same configurations and relationships to one another according to certain ordered periods, they say that all things on earth are in the same state as they were when the world contained that same configuration of the relationship of the stars. It is necessary, therefore, according to this argument, that when the stars have come after a long period to the same relationship with one another that they had in the time of Socrates (78), Socrates must be born again from the same causes, and suffer the same things, being accused by Anytus and Melitus, and condemned by the council of the Areopagus. And if the learned men of the Egyptians (79) are held in respect when they hand down such things, and are not mocked by Celsus and those like him, we, however, in accordance with the analogy of the relationship of A things concerning us. Plato says that the earth is purged at certain times by fire and water. "22. Many and various are the destructions of men that have occurred, and will occur; the greatest by fire and water, and others more brief by ten thousand other causes. For that which is also told among you, how Phaethon, son of Helios, having yoked his father’s chariot, because he was unable to drive along his father’s path, both scorched the things on earth and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt; this is a myth, but it signifies a change and variation of the things that move in the heavens and around the earth, and the destruction by great fire of things on earth which occurs through long cycles." And at the thousandth year, both, arriving at the casting of lots and the choice of a second life, choose whichever life each one wishes; where a human soul also arrives at the life of a beast, and not yet ceasing in these modes of wickedness, according to the similarity of the generation of the mode, it is always changed into some such nature of a beast; nor will it cease from toils before, by the period of the selfsame and similar revolving within itself, drawing together the internal crowd, and afterward growing on from fire and water, and air, and earth, having mastered by reason that which was tumultuous and irrational, it might arrive at the form of quality of the first and best. "All these things, in the second period, Nemesis judged together, 'And this is the decree of Adrasteia, that whatever soul, having become an attendant of God, has seen any of the truths, should be unharmed until the other period.' And in all these things, whoever lives justly, possesses a better lot; but whoever lives unjustly, a worse one. For into the same place from whence each soul comes, it does not arrive for ten thousand years (for it does not grow wings before such a time), except the soul of him who has philosophized purely, or loved boys with philosophy; these, in the third millennium period, if they choose this life three times in succession, thus having grown wings, depart in the three-thousandth year. 'And at the thousandth year, both, arriving at the casting of lots and the choice of a second life, each chooses whatever [life] she wishes.'" B Pythagoras also learned the things concerning the "sacred discourse," and the theorems according to geometry, and the things concerning numbers, and furthermore the transmigration of the soul into every animal, from the Egyptians. C D
A ...saying that the whole is governed by God, and is always led according to its potential towards the better, and knowing the nature of that which is in our own power, which is contingent—for the entirely immutable nature of God cannot contain [all things]—we do not seem to say things worthy of trial and examination. Nor let anyone suppose, when we say these things, that we belong to those who are indeed called Christians, but who reject the dogma concerning the resurrection according to the Scriptures. For they, as far as their own pleasure is concerned, have no means of representing the ear or tree of grain rising again as if from a grain of wheat or some other [seed]. But we, believing that that which is sown is not made alive unless it dies, and that it is not the [final] body that is sown—for B God gives it a body as He has willed; after being sown in corruption, raising it in incorruption; and after being sown in dishonor, raising it in glory; and after being sown in weakness, raising it in power; and after being sown a soulish body, raising it a spiritual one—we keep the will of the Church of Christ and the magnitude of the promise of God, representing also its possibility, not by a mere denial, but also by argument. Knowing that even if heaven and earth should pass away, and the things in them, the words concerning each thing, being as parts in a whole, or as species in a genus, of the Word who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, shall by no means pass away. For we wish to hear Him who said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
We, therefore, do not say that the corrupted body returns to its original nature, just as neither does the corrupted grain of wheat return into the grain of wheat; for we say that just as in the case of the grain of wheat a stalk rises, so a certain principle is implanted in the body, from which, not being corrupted, the body is raised in incorruption. Those, however, from the Stoa say that the body that is entirely corrupted returns to its original nature, because of their dogmas concerning things that are exactly the same by recurrence, and they say that that very first constitution, from which it was dissolved, will again be constituted; C representing these things by dialectical (as they think) necessities. And we do not retreat into the most absurd refuge, saying that "everything is possible for God"; for we know how to interpret "everything" as not extending to non-existent things, nor to unimaginable ones. We say also that God cannot do shameful things, since then God would be able not to be God; for if God does something shameful, He is not God.
But since he posits that God does not even will things that are "contrary to nature," we make a distinction regarding what is said: that if by "contrary to nature" one means wickedness, we also say that God does not will things contrary to nature, neither those originating from wickedness nor those that happen irrationally; but if [he means] those things [done] according to the reason of God and... D
His will, necessarily and directly, they are not contrary to nature. For things done by God, even if they are paradoxical, or seem paradoxical to some, are not against nature. If we must use terms pressed to their limit, we shall say that, relative to what is commonly thought of as nature, there are certain things beyond nature that God might at some time do, elevating man above human nature and causing him to change into a better and more divine nature; and He preserves him, for as long as he who is being preserved manifests by his actions that this is his desire. A Once we have said that God wills nothing unbecoming to Himself—as that would negate His being God—we shall say that if a man, in accordance with his own perversity, desires something filthy, God will not be able to do this. We are not contentious toward the things said by Celsus, but examining them with a love for truth, we shall agree that God is not [the author] of vicious desire nor of misguided disorder, but [is the author] of a right and just nature, inasmuch as He is the source of all that is good. We also confess that He can grant the soul eternal life; and not only can He, but He does grant it. B And nothing [of what has been said] pains us, particularly not the saying of Heraclitus which Celsus has adopted, that "corpses are more fit to be thrown away than dung"; although one might say concerning this too that while dung is fit to be thrown away, human corpses are not, because of the soul that inhabited them, and especially if it was a more respectable one. For according to the more respectable laws, they are judged worthy of burial with such honor as that matter admits, so that we may not insult with force the soul that inhabited the body by casting it away after it has departed, as is done with the bodies of beasts. Let it not be that God would absurdly render eternal not the grain of wheat, but rather the ear [that springs] from it, [or render eternal] that which is sown C in corruption, but rather that which rises from it in incorruption. Furthermore, the Word of all things is, according to Celsus, God Himself, but according to us, His Son; concerning Whom philosophizing we say: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John I, 1). But according to us, God is not able to do anything irrational or [anything] contrary to Himself. Let us also look at what follows in Celsus’ text, expressed thus: D "The Jews then, having become a peculiar nation and having established laws according to their own custom, and still now observing these among themselves, and keeping their own religion—whatever it may be, but at least a ancestral one—see things in the same way as other men; for each nation cherishes its own ancestral customs, whatever they happen to be established as."
A And it is thought to be advantageous, not only because it happened to enter their minds to think differently one from another, and because it is necessary to guard what has been confirmed for the common good, but also because, as is likely, the parts of the earth, having been distributed from the beginning to different overseers, and being divided according to certain jurisdictions, are governed in this way. And so, the things done among each people would be rightly done in such a way as is pleasing to those [overseers]; for it is not holy to dissolve those things which were established by usage according to place from the beginning. Here Celsus indicates that the ancient Egyptians B later became a peculiar nation, the Jews, and having set laws for themselves, they cherish them. And, so that we may not repeat the words of Celsus already set out, he says that it is advantageous for them too to practice ancestral religion, just as other nations guard their own traditions. And he sets out a deeper reason for why it is advantageous for the Jews to cherish their ancestral customs, hinting that those who by lot happened to be the overseers of the land of those being legislated for, by coordinating with the lawgivers, established them. He seems, therefore, to indicate that both the land of the Jews and the nation upon it are supervised by someone or some ones, by whom or by whom the laws of the Jews were established when their cooperation was given to Moses. “And it is necessary, he says, C to keep the laws, not only because it happened to enter their minds to think differently one from another, and because it is necessary to guard what has been confirmed for the common good, but also because, as is likely, the parts of the earth, having been distributed from the beginning to different overseers, and being divided according to certain jurisdictions, are governed in this way.” Then, as if forgetting what he had said against the Jews, Celsus now includes them, too, in the general praise which he bestows upon all who keep their ancestral customs, saying: “And indeed, the things among each people would be rightly done in such a way as is pleasing to those [overseers].” And observe whether he does not directly wish, as D far as he is concerned, that the Jew while living in his own laws should not depart from them, as doing an unholy thing if he should depart; for he says that “it is not holy to dissolve those things which were established by usage according to place from the beginning.” I would have liked to ask him or those who share his views, who was the one who distributed the parts of the earth from the beginning to different overseers? And clearly, who committed the land of the Jews and the Jews themselves to the one or those who obtained it by lot? For did, as Celsus would love to name him, Zeus distribute the nation of the Jews and their land to someone or some ones? And did he want the one who obtained Judea by lot to impose such laws among the Jews? Or did this happen contrary to his will? Whichever way he answers, you see that the argument will be squeezed into tight straits. But if the parts of the earth were not distributed to their overseers by some one power, then they distributed the earth among themselves by chance and without his authority.
But this A also is absurd, and in some measure subversive of the providence of the God who is over all. As to how the regions of the earth are divided into certain jurisdictions and governed by those who oversee them, let him who wishes explain it; and let him also tell us how those things which are done by each are rightly performed, just as it is pleasing to the overseers. And whether, for instance, the laws of the Scythians concerning the killing of fathers are right; or those of the Persians, which do not prevent mothers from marrying their sons, nor daughters from being married by their fathers. And why need I, by citing from those who have written about the laws in different nations, go on to ask further how the laws are rightly performed among each, according as it is pleasing to the overseers? Let Celsus tell us how it is B not impious to violate the ancestral laws concerning marrying mothers and daughters; or concerning the belief that it is a blessed thing to depart from life by hanging; or that those who cast themselves into the fire and pass from life by way of fire are in all cases purified; and how it is not impious to violate the laws, for example, of the Taurians, concerning the offering of strangers as sacrifices to Artemis; or those of certain Libyans concerning the sacrificing of their children to Cronus. But it follows for Celsus that it is impious for the Jews to violate their ancestral laws, which are about the duty not to worship any god other than the Creator of all things. C And according to him, holiness will not be a thing by nature, but a divine thing by some sort of decree and convention; for it is holy among some to worship the crocodile, while eating something of what is worshiped by others; and it is holy to others to worship the calf; and among others to consider the goat to be a god. Thus, the same person will be doing holy things in relation to these laws, but unholy things in relation to others; which is the most absurd of all things. But it is likely that they will say, in response to this, that it is holy to observe one's own ancestral customs, but in no way impious, since one does not observe those of others; and again, D that he who does not observe them does not [violate them]. For those in authority among the Persians marry their own mothers, and they consider those born from them to be the most noble, and, as the story goes, they deem them worthy of the greatest kingship; what more impious crime could there be than this—to shame the bed of a deceased father, which ought to have been kept untouched as sacred; not to take shame for age or for a mother; for the same man to become both son and husband, and again for the same woman to be at once mother and wife; and for the children of both to be at the same time brothers of their father and grandsons of their mother; and for the one by whom he was born to be both mother and grandmother, and for the one whom he begot to be at once father and brother by the same mother? You see, for the god at Delphi, when someone asks him how he might gratify the gods, answers: "According to the law of the city." These things they do at banquets; but using ancestral laws, they acquire no other.
A And this, consider if it does not reveal great confusion concerning what is just, holy, and pious—nothing being clearly defined, nor having any peculiar nature, nor characterizing as pious those who act in accordance with it. For if piety, holiness, and justice are among those things that exist in relation to something else, so that the same thing is holy and unholy according to different relations and laws, see whether temperance, courage, prudence, knowledge, and the other virtues would not follow suit; than which there could be nothing more absurd.
For those who are satisfied with simpler and more common arguments, what has been said is sufficient against the propositions presented by Celsus; but since we suppose that some of those who are more inquisitive will also encounter this writing, come, let us risk setting forth a few of the deeper matters, which contain a certain mystical and ineffable theory concerning why, from the beginning, different regions of the earth were assigned to different overseers; and let us demonstrate, as far as possible, that our teaching is free from the absurdities mentioned.
B It seems to me that Celsus has heard from some people about the more mystical theories of the distribution of the parts of the earth, which Greek history also touches upon to some degree, introducing some of those who are considered gods as contending with one another over Attica; and causing some of the so-called gods in the poets to acknowledge that certain places are more suited to them. Barbarian history also, and especially that of the Egyptians, shows something similar regarding the division of what are called the nomes of Egypt, saying that the one who drew Sais, Athena, she also holds Attica. And the learned men among the Egyptians will tell myriad such things; though I do not know if they also include the Jews and their land in some such distribution. C But concerning things said outside of the divine word, this is enough for the present. We say, however, that our prophet of God and His genuine servant, Moses, in the song of Deuteronomy, sets forth the following concerning the division of the earth: "When the Most High did divide the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And the Lord’s portion became His people Jacob, the lot of His inheritance, Israel" (Deut. xxxii, 8, 9). D Regarding this distribution of the nations, the same Moses in the book entitled Genesis narrates in the mode of history as follows: "And all the earth was of one lip, and one voice was for all. And it came..."
to pass as they moved from the East, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt there." A And a little after he says: "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men built; and the Lord said: Behold, there is one race and one lip for all; and this they have begun to do, and now all things whatsoever they set themselves to do will not fail them. Come, and let us go down and confuse their language there, so that they may not hear B each one the voice of his neighbor. And the Lord scattered them from thence upon the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city and the tower. For this reason its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord God confused the lips of all the earth, and from thence the Lord God scattered them upon the face of all the earth." C And in the Wisdom of Solomon, the book inscribed with his name, regarding Wisdom and the events of the confusion of languages, during which the allotment of those upon the earth took place, such things are said concerning Wisdom: "She, when the nations had fallen into a conspiracy of wickedness, knew the righteous man and kept him blameless before God, and preserved him strong in the tender compassion for his child." Much and mystical is the argument concerning these things, to which is appropriate the saying: D "It is good to hide the mystery of a king," so that the doctrine concerning souls—which descend into bodies not through transmigration—may not be cast into random ears, nor that the holy things be given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine. For such a thing is impious, containing a betrayal of the secrets of the oracles of God’s wisdom, regarding which it is well written: "Into a malicious soul wisdom will not enter, nor will she dwell in a body subject to sin." But it shall suffice to present those things which are spoken secretly as in the manner of history, in the manner of history, so that those who are able may work out for themselves the interpretation of the passage. Let all men upon the earth be understood as using one divine language, and insofar as they agree with one another, let them be kept in the divine language; and let them be unmoved from the East, as long as they are thinking the thoughts of the light and of the radiance of the eternal Light. And these, when they move themselves from the East, thinking thoughts alien to the East, let them find a plain in the land of Sennaar (which is interpreted as "the shaking out of teeth," as a symbol of the losing of those things by which they are nourished), and let them dwell there. Then, desiring to gather the things of matter, and to glue together those things not naturally suited to be glued to heaven, so that through material things they may plot against the immaterial, let them say: "Come, let us make bricks and burn them with fire." As then, strengthening and hardening the muddy and material things, and attempting to make the brick a stone and the mud bitumen,
A and from these to build a city and a tower whose top—as far as their assumption reached—would be high, lifting itself up against the knowledge of God; let each [of them], according to the proportion of his movement from the East, whether this was greater or less, and according to the proportion of the preparation of the bricks into stones, and of the mud into bitumen, and of the building erected from these, be handed over to angels more or less burdensome, these or those, until they have paid the penalty for that which they have dared. And let each one of those who have brought about the language peculiar to themselves be led by the angels into the regions of the earth according to their own merit: some to a region, for instance, that is scorching; others to one that punishes its inhabitants by its cold, others to a land difficult to farm, and others to one that is more easily worked; and some into a land full of wild beasts, and others into one that has fewer of them. B Thereafter, if any is able, as in a narrative form—which has something true about it on its own, but which also shows something hidden—let him consider those who have kept the original language by not having moved from the East, remaining in the East and in the Eastern language; and let him understand that these alone became the portion of the Lord, and His people called Jacob, and that [they] became the lot of His inheritance, Israel. And let these alone be governed by a ruler who has not undertaken the charge of those under him for the purpose of punishment, as the others have. And let him who is able look at the life of these men, and see how, among those assigned to the portion that was preeminent for the Lord, sins were committed which were at first tolerable, and of such a kind that they were not entirely worthy of being abandoned; but later, [sins that were] more numerous, yet still tolerable. C And seeing this happening over a long period, and seeing that healing was always being applied, and that they were returning at intervals, let him see them being abandoned in proportion to those sins committed by those who had obtained the other regions—at first indeed punished to a lesser degree and having paid the penalty, having been as it were schooled, returning to their own affairs; but later, let him see them delivered over to harsher rulers, as the Scriptures would call [them], the Assyrians, then the Babylonians; then, with remedies being applied, let him see them nonetheless increasing their sins, and because of this being dispersed by the rulers who plunder them from among the rest of the nations in the other portions. And let their own ruler deliberately ignore their being plundered by the rulers in the remaining nations, so that he himself, also logically, as if avenging himself, might receive such [authority] and do the same, and set down laws for them, and have the power to draw away from the rest of the nations whomsoever he can, and show them a life according to which they ought to live, so that he might lead them to the end to which he had led D those who did not sin from the former nation.
A And by this let those who are able to understand such things learn that he who has been allotted those who did not previously sin is much more powerful than the rest; since he has been able, having taken those who were elect from the portion of all, to remove them from those who had taken them for punishment, and to guide them to laws and a life that contributes to the oblivion of their previous sins. B But, as we have said before, let these things be said by us obscurely, which represent the things they heard who said, "the parts of the earth were from the beginning distributed to different overseers, and were separated according to certain authorities, and are administered in this way," from which Celsus also having taken the expressions laying there, spoke them. But since those who moved from the east, because they had sinned, were delivered "to a reprobate mind and to passions of dishonor, and in the desires of their hearts to uncleanness," so that when they were satiated with sin they might hate it; we shall not submit to the opinion of Celsus, asserting that through the overseers distributed to the parts of the earth, the things among each people are rightly done; but we also wish, not in the way it is pleasing to them, to do their things. C For we see that it is holy to dissolve the laws established from the beginning according to places with better and more divine laws, which Jesus, as the most powerful, established, "having delivered us from the present evil age," and "from the rulers of this age who are being brought to nothing"; but it is unholy not to cast oneself upon him who appeared and was shown to be purer and more powerful than all the rulers, to whom God said, as the prophets foretold many ages before: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession." For he himself has become the expectation of us who from the nations have believed in him, and in the God over all, his Father. D These things have been said not only regarding the things lying before us about the overseers, but also moderately anticipating the things said against us by Celsus, in which he says: "Let the second come; and I will ask them from where they have come, or whom they have as their leader of ancestral laws. They will name none, since they themselves have originated from there, and they do not bring their teacher and leader from anywhere else; yet they have departed from the Jews." We have therefore arrived, each one of us, in these last days, when our Jesus has visited us, at "the manifest mountain of the Lord," the Word which is above every word, and "to the house of God," which is the "Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth"; and we see in what way this is built upon the tops of the mountains, of all the prophetic words which are its foundation.
A Nations are uplifted, and we say, "Let us go to it," and the many nations are on their way. And just as, if some people were plotting secretly to remove a tyrant who had seized the governance of a city, they would be doing well, so too—perhaps there lies in the wars of the bees a lesson concerning how, if there should ever be a need, just and ordered wars should be waged among men—is this house built above the mountains, those who seem to hold some preeminent position among men in wisdom and truth. B And we, all the nations, come to it, and the many nations are on their way, and we say to one another, encouraging one another toward the piety that has shone forth in these last days through Jesus Christ: "Come, let us ascend to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will announce to us his path, and we will walk in it." For the law has gone forth from Sion, and a spiritual one has been set up for us. But the word of the Lord has also gone forth from that Jerusalem, C so that it might be distributed everywhere and might judge among the nations, choosing those it sees to be obedient, while rebuking the great multitude of those who are disobedient. And we do indeed say to those who ask us whence we have come or who we have as our leader, that we have come, according to the teachings of Jesus, to beat our war-like logical swords into plowshares, and we transform our previous war-making spears into pruning hooks. For we no longer take up the sword against any nation, nor do we learn to wage war any longer, D having become children of peace through Jesus, who is our leader, in place of those ancestral customs under which we happened to be strangers to the covenants, receiving a law, for which we give thanks to Him who rescued us from our error, saying, "Our fathers possessed false idols, and there is no one among them who can bring rain." Therefore, our choir-leader and teacher, having come forth from the Jews, distributes throughout the whole inhabited world the word of his teaching. And having said these things first, we have to the best of our ability refuted the words brought against us by Celsus, joining them to his preceding arguments. But so that we might not pass over the things stated by Celsus in between, come, let us set forth these as well: "One might also use Herodotus as a witness against this, saying thus: 'For those who dwell in the territory of Mareotis and Apis, on the borders of Libya and Egypt, and who consider themselves to be Libyans and not Egyptians, and are distressed by the religious worship concerning the temples, wishing not to be restricted from female cows, sent to Ammon saying that there was nothing...'"
common between them and the Egyptians; for they dwell outside the Delta, and do not agree with them; and they wish to be allowed to eat of all things. But God does not permit them to do this, A saying that Egypt is that land which the Nile waters as it flows over it, and that Egyptians are those who drink from this river, living below the city of Elephantine. These things are recorded by Herodotus; but Ammon is nothing inferior in acting as a messenger for divine matters than the angels of the Jews; so that it is not unjust for each people to observe their own rites. B Truly, we shall find there is a very great difference among them according to nations; and yet each people seems to itself to think most correctly. Those of the Ethiopians who inhabit Meroe worship only Zeus and Dionysus; the Arabians, only Uranus and Dionysus; all Egyptians, Osiris and Isis; the Saites, Athena; the Naucratites, not having begun long ago, named Serapis; and the others according to the laws as each has them. And some abstain from sheep, C worshipping them as sacred; others from goats; others from crocodiles; others from female cows; but they abstain from swine, abhorring them. Among the Scythians, to feast on humans is honorable. And there are some of the Indians who think it a holy act even to eat their parents; and somewhere the same Herodotus says this. I will use again his own words for the sake of credibility; he records as follows: "For if anyone were to set before all men, commanding them to choose the best laws from all laws, having considered them, each would choose their own; so much do all people believe their own laws to be the best. D It is not therefore likely that any man except a madman would make a mockery of such things. That all men have thus judged concerning laws, it is possible to gauge by many other proofs, and indeed by this one. Darius, in his own reign, having called together the Greeks who were present, asked for what price they would be willing to eat their parents when they died. They answered that they would do this for nothing. Darius, after this, having called those of the Indians who are called Callatiae, who eat their parents, asked them, with the Greeks present and learning through an interpreter what was being said, for what price they would accept to burn their parents when they died. But they, calling out loudly, ordered him to speak auspicious words." Thus then these things have been considered established; and Pindar seems to me to have spoken rightly, saying that law is the king of all. Through these arguments, the discourse seems to Celsus to proceed to the conclusion that all men ought to live according to their ancestral customs, and would not be blamed for this; but that the Christians, having left their ancestral customs, and not being a single nation as the Jews are, have injuriously attached themselves to the teaching of Jesus. Let him tell us, therefore, whether it is proper.
A for those who apply themselves to philosophy, and are taught not to be superstitious, to abandon their ancestral customs, even to the point of eating those things forbidden in their own lands, or whether they would be acting against their duty by doing so? For if, on account of philosophy and those teachings that counteract superstition, they do not observe their ancestral customs—and would eat of those things forbidden to them by their fathers—why then should not Christians (since the Word persuades them not to exert themselves about images and foundations, or even about the things created by God, but to transcend them and present the soul to the Creator), while doing the equivalent of those who apply themselves to philosophy, do this without blame? But if Celsus, or those who are well-pleased with his ideas, should say, in order to maintain the premise he has set for himself, that ancestral laws must be kept even by a philosopher, then it will turn out—to cite a most ridiculous example—that those who happen to be among the Egyptians should abstain from eating onions, that they might keep the ancestral customs, or from certain parts of the body, such as the head or the shoulder, so as not to transgress the things handed down to them by their fathers. And I do not yet speak regarding those Egyptians who tremble at the [natural] ventings of the body, so that if anyone were to philosophize from such things and keep the ancestral customs, he would be a ridiculous philosopher, doing things that are unphilosophical. Thus, then, also he who has been brought by the Word to worship the God of all things, but who, because of ancestral customs, remains somehow below among the images and human foundations, and is not willing to rise in his choice toward the Creator, would be nearly equivalent to those who have learned the lessons of philosophy, but who fear what is not to be feared, and think it is impiety to eat of such things. And what of that Ammon B of Herodotus, whose words Celsus has taken up as if for a proof regarding the necessity for everyone to keep their ancestral customs? For their Ammon says to those living near the city of Marea and Apis, in the borderlands of Libya, that it is not lawful for them to be indifferent toward the use of female cattle; a matter which is not only in its nature indifferent, but which also does not prevent anyone from being good and noble. And if their Ammon forbade the use of female cattle because of the usefulness of the animal for agriculture, and, in addition to this, because the breed is best increased through the females, the argument might perhaps have some plausibility; but now he wishes them to keep the Egyptian laws concerning female cattle simply because they drink the water of the Nile. And on this point, Celsus mocks the angels among the Jews who are ambassadors of the things of God, saying that "Ammon is no worse C than the angels of the Jews at carrying messages about demons"—of whom he has not examined the reasons, nor what they wish in their appearances. For he would have seen that there is no care for cattle D on the part of God, nor even when He constitutes laws concerning these or other irrational animals; but these things were written for the sake of men for whom he [God] seems to be legislating concerning oxen or irrational animals; but the things for men...
A written under the pretext of irrational animal matters, contain a certain physiology. Celsus, then, says that each person does nothing unjust, wanting to worship their own customs; and it follows according to him that the Scythians do nothing unjust, since they dine on human beings according to their ancestral rites; and the Indians who think they act piously in eating their parents—these also, according to Celsus, act not unjustly. He displays, therefore, the term of Herodotus, favoring the idea that each one should appropriately make use of their ancestral laws; and he seems to approve of those in the time of Darius, called the Callatiae Indians, who devour their parents; since, when questioned by Darius for what sum they would be willing to cast off this law, they cried out loudly, ordering him to speak auspicious words.
Since there are two laws set forth generally, one of which is the law of nature, which God would legislate, and the other being the one written for cities; it is good, where the written law does not oppose the law of God, not to abandon the citizens under the pretext of foreign laws; but where the law of nature, that is, of God, commands things contrary to the written law, see if reason does not say B to bid a long farewell to the written things and the will of the legislators, and to give oneself over to God the Lawgiver, and to choose to live according to His word, even if it must be done with dangers, and myriad labors, and deaths, and disgrace. For it is absurd, when the things that please God are other than those that please some of the laws in cities, and it is impossible to be pleasing to God and to those who preside over such laws, to scorn the actions through which one pleases the Creator of all things, and to choose those from which one will be displeasing to God, but pleasing to the lawless C and their friends.
If then it is reasonable in other matters to prefer the law of nature, which is the law of God, over the written law enacted by men contrary to the law of God; how much more must this be done in the laws concerning God? And we shall not, like the Ethiopians who dwell about Meroe, worship Jove and Dionysus (as it pleases them) as the only gods; but neither shall we honor Ethiopian gods in the Ethiopian manner; nor, like the Arabs, shall we account only for Urania and Dionysus as gods; nor indeed shall we consider as gods those in whom the female and male are honored (for the Arabs worship Urania as female, and Dionysus as male); nor shall we consider, as all the Egyptians do, Osiris and Isis as gods; nor shall we rank with them, according to that which seems good to the Saites, Athena. And if it seemed good to the elders among the Naucratites to worship one set of gods, but to those who began yesterday and the day before to worship Serapin D who was not a god—we certainly shall not count in the number of gods the recent god who was not previously a god, and who was not known to men before now. Neither for the Son of God, who is the first-born of all...
creation, even if he appeared to have been made man recently, shall we say on that account that he is recent; for the divine Word knows him to be the oldest of all created things, and it is to him that God spoke concerning the creation of man: A «Let us make man according to our image and likeness.» B Therefore, he is not on that account—if we were to say this of those who follow ancestral customs—a new god, who was not previously a god, nor known to men. But I wish to demonstrate in what manner Celsus does not speak reasonably when he says that each person should worship his own ancestral customs. For he says C that the inhabitants of Meroë in Ethiopia know only two gods, Zeus and Dionysus, and worship them alone; and the Arabians also only two, Dionysus, as the Ethiopians do, and Urania, who is their own. According to his history, neither do the Ethiopians worship Urania, nor the Arabians Zeus. Would then, if some Ethiopian, becoming a resident among the Arabians owing to some circumstance, were considered impious because he did not worship Urania, and on this account were in danger of death, would it be fitting for the Ethiopian to die, or to act against his ancestral customs and worship Urania? For if it be fitting for him to act against his ancestral customs, he would not be doing what is holy, so far as Celsus’s arguments are concerned; but if he were brought to death, let Celsus demonstrate the reasonableness of choosing death. I do not know if, of the Ethiopians' reasoning D which instructs them to philosophize about the immortality of the soul and the reward for the pious, they worship gods held to be such according to their ancestral laws. And the same can be said about the Arabians who, due to some circumstance, have come to stay with the Ethiopians of Meroë. For these, too, having been taught to worship only Urania and Dionysus, will not worship Zeus with the Ethiopians; and if they were considered impious, and were to be led away to death, let Celsus say what they should reasonably do. It is superfluous for us now to recount the myths about Osiris and Isis, and it is not opportune. But even if the myths are to be interpreted allegorically, they will teach us to worship the lifeless water, and the earth which lies beneath men and all living creatures. For thus, I believe, they transform them, Osiris into water and Isis into earth. Regarding Serapis, there is a long and divergent history...
and one that came to light some time ago through certain magical arts of Ptolemy, who wished to display him as a god, as it were, manifest to those in Alexandria. We have read in Numenius the Pythagorean concerning his construction, how he partakes of the substance of all things governed by nature, both animals and plants, so that he might appear to be fashioned not only by sculptors, but also by magi and dealers in charms, along with the rituals of the uninitiated and the magical arts that summon demons. But why do I dwell on these things, when it is possible to show you the great demon himself, who he was, whom we hear is judged worthy of worship by all by way of excellence? They have dared to say that this one—the Egyptian Serapis—is not made by human hands. For some recount that he was a gift sent by the people of Sinope to Ptolemy Philadelphus, the king of the Egyptians, who, having sent grain from Egypt to them when they were perishing with famine, had won their gratitude; and that this wooden image was a statue of Pluto; and that Ptolemy, having received the statue, set it up on the promontory which they now call Rhacotis, where the temple of Serapis is also honored. A Others say that the statue of Serapis is from Pontus, and that it was brought to Alexandria with festal honors. Isidorus alone says that the statue was brought over from the Seleucians who are near Antioch, when they too were suffering from a shortage of grain and had been provided for by Ptolemy. Ptolemy Soter removed the colossal statue of Pluto that was in Sinope—not knowing or having seen before what it was like in form—following orders to bring it with all speed to Alexandria. As he was ignorant and at a loss as to where it was established, and while he was relating the vision to his friends, a man of wide travels was found, Sosibius by name, who said he had seen in Sinope just such a colossus as the king had imagined seeing. He sent therefore Soteles and Dionysius, who with much time and difficulty, yet not without divine providence, brought it away by stealth. And when, having been brought, it was seen, those around Timotheus the interpreter and Manetho the Sebennyte, putting their intelligence together and inferring from the Cerberus and the dragon, persuaded Ptolemy that it was the statue of no other of the gods, but of Serapis. For he did not come from there named as such, but, having been brought to Alexandria, he acquired the Egyptian name of Pluto, namely Serapis.
A and of the demons who are charmed by their incantations. B One must therefore seek that which is appropriate for a rational and gentle animal, acting in all things according to reason, as regards what is edible and what is not; and not, as if by lot, to worship sheep, or goats, or female cows; and while it is acceptable to abstain from these, for much utility comes to men from these animals, yet to spare crocodiles and to hold them sacred to some I do not know what fabled god—how is this not the most foolish thing of all? For it is the mark of those who are utterly thunderstruck to spare animals that do not spare them, and to show honor to animals that devour men. But to Celsus, those who observe their ancestral laws in worshiping and honoring crocodiles are acceptable, and he has written no word of blame against them, while Christians appear to be worthy of rebuke, being taught to abhor wickedness and to turn away from the works of wickedness, and to worship and honor virtue as being birthed by God and being the Son of God. For one must not suppose that because the names of wisdom and justice are feminine, they are therefore female in their substance. For we believe that the wisdom of God is his Son, as his genuine disciple bore witness, saying concerning him: "Who was made for us wisdom from God, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption." 1 Cor. 1:30. And if, therefore, we call him a second God, let them know that by "the second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue that embraces all virtues, and a reason that contains in itself whatever reason exists in things that have been made according to nature and primarily for the utility of the universe. This reason, we affirm, was more than in any other soul intimate and united to the soul of Jesus, as only he was able perfectly to contain the ultimate participation of the Word himself, and of Wisdom himself, and of Justice himself.
40. Since, however, Celsus, having spoken such things concerning the diverse laws, adds that it seems to him that Pindar spoke rightly in saying that law is the king of all, come, let us discuss this matter also. What law, pray, do you mean, good sir? C D
law that is king of all? If you mean the laws in each city, this is a falsehood; for all men are not ruled by the same law. It would have been necessary to say, "The laws are kings of all," for in every nation, some law is king of all. But if you understand "the law" in its proper sense, this is by nature the king of all—even if some, like robbers fleeing from the laws, deny it and live in a predatory and unjust manner. We Christians, therefore, having recognized the law that is by nature king of all, which is the same as the law of God, attempt to live according to it, while bidding farewell to impious laws.
B Let us look also at the things said next by Celsus, in which the references to Christians are very few, while those about the Jews are very many. He says: "If the Jews maintain their own law in this way, they are not to be blamed, but rather those who have left their own and pretend to follow the Jewish customs; but if they boast as though they know something wiser, and shun the association of others as if it were not equally pure, they have already heard that they do not claim a view about heaven that is peculiar to them, but—to pass over others—even the Persians (as Herodotus somewhere shows) have long held this view." For he says: "They are accustomed, in ascending to the highest of the mountains, to offer sacrifices to Zeus, calling the whole circle of the heaven Zeus." Thus, I think it makes no difference whether one calls him Zeus Most High, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammon, as the Egyptians do, or Papaeus, as the Scythians do. Nor, again, would they be holier than others on account of these things, because they are circumcised—for the Egyptians and Colchians had this custom earlier—or because they abstain from swine's flesh; for these people, too, the Egyptians, abstain not only from it, but also from the flesh of goats and sheep and oxen and fish; and indeed Pythagoras and his disciples[abstain] from all living things. C And it is not probable that they are esteemed or loved by God differently from others, or that angels are sent to them alone, as if they had been allotted some blissful region; for we see both them and the region [and] what they have been deemed worthy of. Let this chorus, therefore, be gone, having paid the penalty for its arrogance, not knowing the great God, but having been drawn away and deceived by the sorcery of Moses, and having become a disciple of the same, not for a good end.
It is clear that in these things he blames the Jews, as falsely supposing themselves to be an elect portion before all nations of the God who is over all; and D [these words refer to the passage mentioned above, as he has spoken of them before, when he was discussing them, since he compels us to deal with these same things. Here, too, in disputing the nature of names, he does not suggest that they do not depend on the choice of men and their laws; for he did not think that men, by the languages which they use, gave the origin of names; but he makes this evident by the fact that the authors of the languages used [them] for each [person] according to his own language and the different pronunciation of names.]
A
He indeed accuses them of arrogance, inasmuch as they boast of the great God while not knowing Him, but have been led astray by the sorcery of Moses and deceived by him, and have not been disciples of his for any good end. We have already spoken in part, in the preceding, of how noble and excellent the Jewish society was, when the symbol of the City of God, and of His temple, and of the priestly worship performed by Him and at the altar, subsisted among them. And if anyone, fixing his mind upon the intention of the lawgiver and examining their affairs in accordance with his society, were to compare them with the present conduct of the remaining nations, he would admire them more than any others; since they had removed from among [their] men all things that were useless to the human race, and had accepted only those that were useful. Hence there were no athletic, or theatrical, or equestrian contests among them; nor any women selling their beauty to any who desired to sow in vain and to commit outrage against the nature of human seeds. And what sort of thing was it among them to be taught, from their tenderest years, to rise above the whole sensible nature, and not to suppose that God is established anywhere within it, but to seek Him above and beyond bodies? And how great was the importance of the fact that, almost at their birth and the completion of speech, they were taught the immortality of the soul, and B the inquisitions beneath the earth, and the rewards for those who have lived rightly? Which things were preached even more mythically to a child, and to those who thought the thoughts of children; but to those already seeking the Word, and desiring to advance in it, the former myths (to name them so) were transformed into the truth hidden within them. I, for my part, consider it worthy of them, as they are called a portion of God, to have despised all divination, as it leads men astray in vain; and as coming rather from wicked demons than from any superior nature; and to seek the knowledge of things to come in souls that, through extreme purity, have received the Spirit of the God over all. Such were their customs. C And as to the rule that it is not permitted for one who is sprung from the same teachings to continue in slavery for more than six years, how reasonable it is, and what need is there to speak of how it lacks injustice both toward master and slave? The Jews, therefore, would not guard their own law in the same way as the other nations; for it would be blameworthy for them, and an accusation of insensibility D regarding the excellence of the laws, if they thought they were written in the same manner as those of the other nations. And even if Celsus does not wish it, the Jews are indeed possessed of a wisdom greater not only than that of the many, but even than that of those who are considered to be philosophers; for these, while appearing to philosophize, fall after their noble discourses in philosophy into idols and demons; but even the lowest of the Jews looks only to the God over all; and quite rightly, inasmuch as they pride themselves for this, and shun the association of others as impious and profane. And would that they had not erred
in transgressing the law—they who formerly killed the prophets, and later conspired against Jesus! So that we might have an example of a heavenly city, which Plato A sought to delineate, but I do not know if he was able to do so as much as Moses was able, and those after him, a chosen race, and a holy nation, and one dedicated to God, nurturing themselves with words pure from all superstition. But since Celsus wishes to make common the solemn things of the Jews with the laws of certain nations, come, let us also consider these. He thinks, therefore, that the dogma concerning heaven B does not differ from that concerning God, and he says that the Persians perform sacrifices to Zeus on the highest of the mountains in a manner similar to the Jews; not seeing that the Jews, as they knew one God, so they knew one holy house of prayer, and one altar of whole burnt offerings, and one altar of incense, and one high priest of God. Therefore, there was nothing in common between the Jews and the Persians, who ascended the highest mountains—for there were many of these—and performed sacrifices that had nothing similar to those according to the law of Moses, according to which the C priests of the Jews served as a model and shadow of heavenly things, explaining in secret the intention of the law concerning sacrifices, and the things of which these were symbols. The Persians, then, let them call the whole circle of heaven Zeus, but we say that neither Zeus nor the heaven is God; we who know that even some of those inferior to God have ascended above the heavens and all sensible nature. And so we understand: "Praise God, you heavens of heavens, and the water above the heavens, let them praise the name of the Lord." But, since Celsus thinks it makes no difference to call D Zeus 'Highest,' or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or as the Egyptians do, Ammon, or as the Scythians do, Pappaeus; come, let us also discuss these things briefly, reminding the reader at the same time of the things said above concerning such a problem, when the word of Celsus called us to such things. And so now we say, that the nature of names does not have laws from those who gave them, as Aristotle thinks. For not even the dialects among men have their beginning from men, as is clear to those able to observe nature, as the fathers of the dialects were adapted, according to the different dialects and the different utterances of the names; concerning which in the things above…
Plato, indeed, having written one Republic, persuaded no one to use it on account of its austerity.
"Who are governed according to the laws of Plato? Who accepted the Republic written by him?" "He came a second time to the younger Dionysius, asking for land and men to live according to his Republic; but he, although he promised, did not do it." "And we know also the city of Plato is an example lying in heaven."A As we have already shown above in a few words, names which possess power in their own language, if they are converted into another, do by no means perform that which they used to perform in their own. This same thing may also be observed in regard to men. For if anyone has received a Greek name from birth, and you were to try to use an incantation upon him with a name derived from the Egyptian, or Roman, or any other language, you would not affect him in the same way as you would have had you used the name first imposed; nor would the incantation have the same effect if a person called by a Roman name were addressed by a name transferred into Greek, as it would if performed while keeping the first name. Now, if these things are true concerning human names, what ought we to think concerning names which for any reason whatever are attributed to the Divinity? Let us compare examples. The names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when converted into Greek, have a certain meaning; and whoever, either in incanting or in swearing, names the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, will accomplish certain things through the nature or power of those names, to such an extent that even demons, being conquered, obey his commands. But if you were to say: "God of the father of the chosen sound," and "God of laughter," and "God of the supplanter," you will accomplish nothing at all with these names, just as if you were to pronounce those things which possess no power. Likewise, the name Israel, if it is converted into Greek or any other language, will be of no strength; but if it is preserved and conjoined with those things with which experts are accustomed to conjoin it, it will produce that which those who use incantations declare can be expected from the pronunciation of certain words. The same must be said concerning the word Sabaoth, frequently used in incantations. For if, instead of it, one were to say "Lord of virtues," or "Lord of hosts," B even if this occurs in the *Philocalia* here, and below, a small word is missing: nor do names truly retain the same sense when translated into another language; but they are proper to individual nations, such that they cannot signify through the voice to other nations. Added to this is that, if we are able to interpret the properties of the meanings through another language, they do not, however, preserve the same power when permuted.
C *Nicephorus Gregoras in his Scholion on the book of Synesius, "On Dreams":* (Understand these to be the Chaldaeans, from whose writings he says he collected these things.) "Now truly concerning the names which they use, they give instructions by this formula: 'Do not by any means change barbarian names.' For there are names divinely imposed upon individuals, which have incredible power and efficacy in sacred rites: such as Sabaoth, Adonai, Cherubim, Seraphim, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others of the same kind, whose power and effect you would obscure, as it seemed also to the wise Origen, if you were to express them in the Greek dialect." Moreover, Asclepius, the disciple of Hermes Trismegistus, says in that discourse which he held with the Egyptian king, in these words: "As much as lies in your power, O King, observe the precepts handed down to you by us, lest such arcana and mysteries should reach the Greeks, or the haughty and ornate speech of the Greeks should compress and weaken the gravity and weight of the things, and render the pronunciation of the names less efficacious." For discourses of this kind, explained in the fatherland's vernacular language, contain a clear understanding of the things said; since the very quality of the voice and the power of the Egyptian names comprehend within themselves the effect of the things which are said; but when permuted and converted into another language, they become obscure and inefficacious. D *Spencer.*
A regarding the efficacy of such invocations proceeding from such a voice. We shall say the same also concerning the word Sabaoth, which is frequently used in incantations, that if we translate the name into "Lord of hosts" or "Lord of armies" or "Almighty" (for the interpreters have explained it in various ways), we shall accomplish nothing; but by keeping it in its own proper sounds, we shall do something, as those who are skilled in these matters declare. We shall say the same also concerning Adonai. If, then, neither Sabaoth nor Adonai, when translated into what they appear to signify in the Greek tongue, accomplish anything, how much more would nothing be done, nor could any power be produced, among those who suppose that it makes no difference whether one calls Zeus "the Highest," or Zena, or Adonaion, or Sabaoth? Knowing these and their analogous mysteries, B Moses and the prophets forbid the naming of the names of other gods in the mouth, for one who has practiced praying to the God who is over all alone, and to keep remembrance in a heart taught to be pure from all vanity of thoughts and words. And for such reasons we choose to endure every torment rather than confess Zeus to be God. For we do not suppose that Zeus and Sabaoth are the same; nor do we consider Zeus to be anything divine at all, but some demon who delights in being so named, a friend neither to men nor to the true God. Even if the Egyptians propose Ammon to us, threatening death, we shall choose rather to die than to proclaim Ammon as God, who is, as is likely, invoked as this demon in certain Egyptian incantations. Let the Scythians also say that Pappaeus is God over all; but we shall not be persuaded, while indeed positing the God over all, yet as favoring the one who obtained the Scythian wilderness, and their nation and dialect, we do not name God by the proper name Pappaeus. For whoever calls God by the appellative in the Scythian tongue, or the Egyptian, or in any dialect in which each has been reared, will not err. For the reason for the circumcision of the Jews is not the same as the reason for the circumcision of the Egyptians or the Colchians; wherefore it should not be thought to be the same circumcision. And just as he who sacrifices does not sacrifice to the same, even if he seems to sacrifice in a similar way, and he who prays does not pray to the same, even if he asks for the same things in his prayers; so neither, if someone is circumcised, does he *per se* make no distinction from the circumcision of another. C For the purpose, and the law, and the intention of the one who circumcises makes the matter different. But that the whole matter may be better understood at this point, it must be said that the name of justice is the same among all the Greeks; yet it is already demonstrated that the justice according to Epicurus is one thing, and the justice according to [the others] is another.
they describing the soul as bipartite, having the rational part established in the chest, while the irrational part is dispersed throughout the entire composition of the body. Again, justice is another thing according to the followers of Plato, who maintain that justice consists in each part of the soul performing its own proper work. Likewise, the courage of Epicurus is one thing, as he suffers pains in order to escape greater ones; the courage of the follower of the Stoa is another, who chooses every virtue for its own sake; and the courage of the Platonist is another, who claims that it comes from the irascible part of the soul, and assigns to it a place around the chest. Thus, then, there would be a different circumcision according to the different doctrines of those who are circumcised, though it is not necessary to speak of this now in such a treatise. For whoever wishes to see what moved us to this subject, let him read what we have written in our commentaries on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Even if the Jews boast in the circumcision, they will distinguish it not only from the circumcision of the Colchians and Egyptians, but also from that of the Ishmaelite Arabs, even though Ishmael was born from their forefather Abraham, and was circumcised with him. The Jews say that the circumcision of the eighth day is the primary one, and that which is not of this kind happens only because of some circumstance; and perhaps it was performed on account of some angel hostile to the Jewish nation, who was able to harm those of them who were not circumcised, but was powerless against those who were. This is what someone might say is signified by what is written in Exodus, in which the angel, before the circumcision of Eleazar, was able to exercise power against Moses, but after he was circumcised, he could do nothing. And Zipporah, having learned such things, took a stone and circumcised her child; and according to the common copies, it is written: “The blood of my child’s circumcision stopped him.” And in the Hebrew: “A bridegroom of blood…”
shall you be to me.” For he knew the nature of such an angel, who might have power before the blood, but was restrained by the blood of circumcision; for which reason it was said to him: “A bridegroom of blood shall you be to me.” A But as these things seem somewhat too curious, and not suited to the ears of the multitude, let what has been said with some boldness suffice for now; to this I will add one thing, as is fitting for a Christian, and then I will pass on to the things that follow. For it seems to me that this angel had some power over those of the Jews who were not circumcised, and in general over all who worshipped only the Creator, so long as Jesus had not assumed a body; but after He assumed a body, and that body was circumcised, the power of that angel over those in this religion who were not circumcised was destroyed; for Jesus destroyed it by His ineffable divinity. B Therefore it is forbidden to His disciples to be circumcised, and it is said to them: “If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” Nor indeed do the Jews boast of the abstinence from swine as if it were a matter of great importance; but because, having learned the nature of clean and unclean animals, they understand the cause of this, and why the swine is classed among the unclean. And these things were symbols of certain truths until the coming of Jesus; after which, when His disciple did not yet understand the reason for these matters, and said: “Nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth,” he was told: C “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” Therefore, the statement of Celsus regarding the Egyptian priests, that they abstain not only from swine, but also from goats, sheep, oxen, and fish, touches neither the Jews nor us. Since that which enters into the mouth does not defile a man, and food will not present us to God, we do not pride ourselves on not eating, nor are we led by gluttony to eat. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, the followers of Pythagoras, who abstain from living creatures, may have their way. But observe how different is the reason for the abstinence from living creatures among the followers of Pythagoras and the ascetics among us. D For they abstain from living creatures because of the myth of the soul migrating into various bodies.
And some fool, bereft of wit, Would slay his own child, offering at the altar.
A We, however, if at any time we abstain, do so in order that the body may be chastened and brought into subjection. For we wish to "mortify our members which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, B passion, evil concupiscence"; and we leave nothing untried, that we may mortify the deeds of the flesh. But we, even if we do such a thing, do it... What else? Would it not have been better for the Carthaginians, having taken Critias or Diagoras as a lawgiver from the beginning, to acknowledge neither any god nor demon? Or to sacrifice such things as they sacrificed to Saturn; not as Empedocles says, attacking those who sacrifice living creatures: "The father, having lifted up his dear son who has changed his form, C Slays him, praying—the great fool." But they, knowing and aware, were themselves sacrificing their own children. D Hence these philosophers advised to abstain from living creatures, and said that men were acting impiously, "Reddening the altar of the blessed ones with warm slaughter." And Empedocles somewhere says: "Will you not cease from the harsh-sounding slaughter? Do you not see That you are devouring one another in the thoughtlessness of your mind?" A And further, pronouncing upon the Jews, Celsus says: "And it is not likely that these are approved by God, and are loved more than others, or that angels are sent to them alone, as if they had obtained some blessed land. For we see them and the land they have been judged worthy of." B We shall therefore refute this too, saying that the approval of this nation by God is shown also from the fact that the God over all is called the God of the Hebrews, even by those who are strangers to our faith. And as they were approved, in that they were not abandoned, although few in number, they continued to be guarded by divine power; so that not even in the days of Alexander the Macedonian did they suffer C anything from him, although they refused to take up arms against Darius because of certain treaties and oaths. It is said that then the High Priest of the Jews, clad in the priestly robe, was worshipped by Alexander, who said that in his sleep he had seen someone in this very garb, promising him that he would subject the whole of Asia. We, therefore, the Christians, say that while the being approved by God, and being loved more than others, happened in the highest degree to them; this dispensation D and grace has moved on to us, after the power that was among the Jews was transferred, moving the divine assistance to those from the nations who have believed in Jesus. Wherefore, although the Romans have often wished to destroy the Christians, they have not been able to bring their purpose to an end. For the hand of God was fighting for them, willing that from one...
corner of the earth, namely Judea, the Word of God should be sown throughout the entire human race.
But since we have replied to the extent of our ability to Celsus, who brought accusations against the Jews and their teaching, as well as against our A own doctrine, come, let us set forth what follows and demonstrate that we are not being overweeningly arrogant when we claim to know the great God; nor were we led into error by the sorcery of Moses or of Jesus himself, our Savior. Rather, we listen to God in Moses for a good end, and we have received Jesus, whom God himself bears witness to as the Son of God, hoping for the best when we shape our life according to his word.
But we will willingly pass over those things we have already set forth, where we teach whence we come, what leader we have, and what law is from him. B And if Celsus wishes to assert that we are no different from the Egyptians who worship a goat, or a ram, or a crocodile, or an ox, or a hippopotamus, or a cynocephalus, or a cat, let him see to that himself, and anyone who agrees with him. As for us, we have defended as best we could, in many places above, the reason for the honor we pay to Jesus, showing that we have found what is better; and we, who declare that it is only in the teaching of Jesus Christ that the truth exists, pure and unmixed with falsehood, do not commend ourselves but our Teacher, who was testified to by the God over all through many things: by the prophetic words among the Jews, and by the manifest facts themselves—for it is shown that such great things could not have been done without God.
The passage of Celsus which we wish to examine now is as follows: C «Let us pass over those things that are brought against the disciples regarding their master, and let us assume that he is truly some kind of angel. But did he come first and alone, or did others come before him? If they should answer that he came alone, they would be refuted by stating things that contradict themselves; for they say that others came often, namely, sixty or seventy at once, who became evil and are being punished, confined in bonds under the earth; and that from their tears the warm springs arise. And they say that an angel came to his very tomb, some saying one, others two, who answered the women that he had risen. For the Son of God, it seems, could not open the tomb, but needed another to roll away D the stone. And furthermore, another angel came to the carpenter regarding Mary being pregnant,
and another angel ordered that the child be taken and a flight undertaken. What is the point of such fastidiousness, and why is there any need to enumerate all those who are said to have been sent to Moses and others of their number? If, therefore, others were sent, it is clear that this one too was sent by the same God. And let it be supposed that he was sent to announce something more important, as if the Jews were somehow transgressing, or falsifying piety, or performing acts that were not holy; for these things are what are hinted at. B 53. Now, the things said above in the discussions held separately concerning our Savior Jesus Christ were sufficient to address the words of Celsus; but in order that we may not seem to be passing over any part of his writing intentionally, as though unable to say anything against him, come—even if we are compelled to repeat the same things at Celsus’s urging—let us condense the argument as much as possible, in case something happens to occur regarding these same topics that is more clear or novel. He says, indeed, that he is "omitting the things for which Christians are refuted regarding their teacher," while in fact not omitting a single thing that he was able to say; C just as is manifest from what has been said by him above. In other respects, we are not refuted by rhetorical technique regarding such a Savior as ours; even if the accuser may appear to be refuting [us], it will be clear to those who are lovers of truth and who examine all that has been prophesied and recorded concerning him. Furthermore, he is thought to speak condescendingly concerning the Savior, saying: "Let it be supposed that this one is truly an angel." We say that we do not accept this as though it were being conceded by Celsus; rather, we gaze at his very work, having visited the whole human race according to his own word and teaching, as each was able to receive him. This work, moreover, was that of [the one] whom the prophecy concerning him termed not simply an angel, but "the angel of the great counsel" D; for he announced to men the counsel concerning them—to those who chose to live in pure godliness, that they would ascend toward God through their great deeds; but to those who did not accept it, that they were distancing themselves from God and were journeying toward destruction through their unbelief concerning God. Then, he says next: "If this angel came to men, did he come first and alone, or did others come before him?" And he believes he is answering both [points] at length. But since no one who is truly a Christian says that Christ alone has visited [the world]—Celsus says, "If indeed they should say that [he] alone [visited]..." [and that others were seen by men].
A Then, he answers himself as he wishes. "And so it is not reported that he alone has visited the race of men, so that even those who, under the pretext of the teaching of the name of Jesus, have abandoned the Creator as being inferior, and have approached [him] as a certain greater God, the Father B of the one who visited, assert that even before this, others from the Creator visited the race of men." Since we examine the matters concerning this subject truthfully, we shall say that Apelles, the acquaintance of Marcion, who became the father of a certain heresy, and who considers the Jewish writings to be a myth, says that he alone has visited the race of men. Therefore, Celsus does not reasonably bring forward the things about others having come against him who says that Jesus alone came from God to men, as he is incredulous (as we previously said) of the Jewish Scriptures that report more paradoxical things; and he will admit even less the things which Celsus seems to have supposed, having misunderstood the things written in Enoch. No one, therefore, proves us to be lying and stating the contrary—that our Savior came alone, and that many others have often come [as well].
Of Marcion the Pontian
Marcion the Pontian, who even now is still teaching those who are persuaded to think of some other God greater than the Creator, who through the cooperation of demons has caused many in every race of men to speak blasphemies and to deny the God who is the maker of this whole universe; and [to profess] that some other one, as being greater, has created things greater than this one. C Not only this, but he also rejects the Law and all the prophets, saying that such persons prophesied by [the agency of] the ruler who made the world. But he says that Christ has descended from above from the invisible and unnameable Father for the salvation of souls, and for the refutation of the God of the Jews, and of the Law, and of the prophets.
A And so, while we investigate the matters concerning this subject truthfully, we acknowledge that Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, the author of a certain heresy, and who holds the Jewish scriptures to be fables, said that he alone came to the race of men. Hence, when Celsus brings forward that others also came, he does nothing against him who says that Jesus alone came from God to men, and who, as I was just saying, denies faith to the Jewish scriptures because they report more incredible things. Much less, indeed, would he admit the things which Celsus adduces from the book of Enoch, having understood them poorly. Wherefore, Celsus says nothing whence he might prove that we are lying and speaking contradictory things, as if we were teaching both that our Savior came alone, and that many others have often come. But as for the part [concerning] the angels who [descended] B to... Marcion the Pontian even today teaches his disciples to think of some other God greater than the workman, who, relying on the help of demons, is the author to very many of speaking blasphemous things and denying the God who is the maker of this universe; and to profess that some other one, as greater, has created greater things than this one. C Marcion has raged furiously against the Creator, and indeed, things even much graver than these; for he has passed over greater blasphemies in silence. I know, however, a certain nonagenarian among them who, rising in the morning, would wash his face with the excrement of his own spittle, and when asked the reason, said that he did not want to have need of the Creator, nor to receive water, which is from his works. When, however, those present said, "How therefore do you eat? How do you drink? And [how] are you clothed, and do you sleep, and do you perform the mysteries that have been instituted?" he said that he did this being induced by necessity. ... Furthermore, he rejects the Law and all the prophets, whom he thinks prophesied by the afflatus of that ruler who founded this world. But he says that Christ descended from heaven from that Father who can neither be seen nor named, so that he might both liberate souls, and refute the God of the Jews and of the Law, and of the prophets. D
[GREEK COLUMN] and that many others have come many times. He proceeds with great confusion in his examination concerning the angels who have come to men, setting forth matters concerning him that are not clearly derived from those written in Enoch; which, indeed, he does not appear to have read himself, nor to have known that the books inscribed with the name of Enoch are not generally accepted in the Churches A as divine; whence one might suppose that he had rashly thrown out the notion that sixty or seventy had descended at once and become evil. 55. But in order that we may grant him a more favorable hearing—even if he has not seen what is written in Genesis, that "the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took them wives of all which they chose"—nevertheless, we shall persuade those who are able to hear the prophetic intent that one of those before us had already referred these matters to a discussion B concerning souls, which, having developed a desire for the life of men in the flesh, were figuratively spoken of as "daughters of men." But, however that may be, as regards the sons of God lusting after the daughters of men, he can infer nothing from this passage.
[LATIN COLUMN] Origen, concerning the angels who have come to men, speaks in a A very confused manner, and cites as testimony what he obscurely learned from the book of Enoch. For he appears neither to have read it, nor to have known that the books of Enoch are not judged to be divine in the Churches: from there, however, I suspect he derived the idea that sixty or seventy descended at once and became evil. But even if, acting more benignly toward him, we were to suggest to him those things which are written in Genesis, and which he himself did not see—namely, that "the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, took to themselves wives from all whom they chose"—nevertheless, we shall persuade those who are able to grasp the prophetic mind, that what appeared to some other predecessor of ours is true: that there is a discourse there B concerning souls desirous of this human life, which, through a figure, he called the daughters of men. Moreover, whatever may be the case regarding the sons of God desiring the daughters of men, he can infer nothing from this passage. Gen. vi, 2.
Tertullian vigorously defends this in his book *De cultu feminarum*, i, 3: "I know the scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order to the angels, is not received by some; because it is not admitted into the Jewish cabinet. I suppose they did not think it could be preserved—having been published before the cataclysm, the destroyer of all things after that catastrophe. If this is the reason, they should remember that Enoch’s great-grandson, Noah, survived the cataclysm; and he certainly had heard, by family name and hereditary tradition, and remembered the grace of his great-grandfather before God, and all his prophecies; since Enoch had commanded his son Mathusaleh to hand down the knowledge of these things to his descendants. Therefore, Noah undoubtedly could have succeeded in the delegation of the prophecy; or, at the very least, he would not have remained silent about the disposition of God his preserver, nor about the glory of his own house. If this should not seem quite so readily acceptable, that other argument would also defend the assertion of that scripture: furthermore, it could have been restored in spirit by him after it had been abolished by the violence of the cataclysm; just as it is certain that, after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonian conquest, the entire collection of Jewish literature was restored by Ezra. But since that same scripture of Enoch also prophesied concerning the Lord, nothing at all should be rejected by us that pertains to us. And we read that 'all scripture inspired by God is profitable for instruction' (2 Tim. iii, 16). It may now be seen as rejected by the Jews for this reason, just like almost everything else that speaks of Christ. Nor is it, indeed, surprising that they did not receive some scriptures speaking about him whom they were not about to receive even when he was speaking before their very eyes. Added to this is the fact that Enoch possesses testimony in the Epistle of Jude the Apostle." See the same Tertullian, in his book *De cultu feminarum*, ch. 10, and in the book *De idololatria*, ch. 9 and 15, and *Apologeticus*, ch. 22. One may infer how highly the most ancient Fathers esteemed this book from the fact that Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Tertullian, and others, both Christian philosophers and theologians, learned from reading it the dogma concerning the angels who, having assumed bodies, cohabited with the daughters of men. "It is known in order among the holy letters," says Tertullian, *Apologeticus*, ch. 22, "that is, by the prophecy of Enoch."
Augustine and Jerome disagree: the former in book xv, ch. 23, and book xvi, ch. 38, of *De civitate Dei*; the latter in his *Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum*, under "Jude": "Jude the brother of James left a small epistle, which is one of the seven Catholic ones. And because he assumes testimony from the book of Enoch, which is apocryphal, it is rejected by many; yet it has earned authority by its antiquity and usage, and is computed among the holy Scriptures." But Origen does not utterly reject it, as is evident from this passage, and from tom. viii on John, and book iv of *De principiis*, and his homily on Numbers, nor does Theodotus, *Epitome*. SPENCER.
Philo, in his book *De gigantibus*, explains the aforementioned verse thus: "Whom other philosophers call genii, Moses is accustomed to call angels. They are souls flying through the air. And there is no reason for anyone to think this is a fable. For it is necessary that the whole world should have living beings in all its parts." Flavius Josephus, book i, ch. 4, *Antiquitates Judaicae*: "For many angels of God, having associated with women, procreated a progeny that was insolent and, in its confidence in its own strength, scorned all right and law: whose wicked deeds, not unlike those which the Greeks recount of the giants, have been handed down to posterity." Justin, *Apologeticus* ii, Athenagoras, *Legatio pro Christianis*, Lactantius, book ii, ch. 15; Clement of Alexandria, *Paedagogus*, book iii, at the end of ch. 2, and *Stromata* v, p. 550, and *Stromata* iii, p. 450; Tertullian, *Apologeticus* ch. 22, and *De idololatria*, ch. 9; likewise...
A to those who desired the daughters of men, the "sons of gods," the argument contributes nothing to the point that Jesus alone appeared to men as an angel, a savior and benefactor clearly to all those who turned from the flow of wickedness. Then, mixing and jumbling everything he has heard, whether written anywhere as a divine doctrine among Christians or not, he says that sixty or seventy descended together and were punished by being bound under the earth. B And he introduces (citing from Enoch, though not naming him) the claim that hot springs originate from their tears—a matter neither spoken of nor heard in the churches of God; for no one was so senseless as to embody tears like those of men in the angels who descended from heaven. And if one must play along with the things Celsus treats with such seriousness against us, it must be said that no one would have called hot springs, most of which are sweet, the tears of angels, since the nature of tears is salty, unless perhaps the angels according to Celsus weep sweet tears. C Then, mixing things that are unmixable and dissimilar and equating them with one another, he adds to the discussion about the (as he says) sixty or seventy angels who descended, and the springs of hot water that he says arose from their weeping, that it is also reported that two angels—or as some say, one—came to the very tomb of Jesus. D I suppose he observed that Matthew and Mark report one, while Luke and John report two—which are not contradictory. For those who wrote of one refer to the one who rolled the stone away from the monument; those who wrote of two refer to those who stood over the women who came to the monument in flashing garments, or those who were seen sitting inside in white robes. It is possible now to demonstrate that each of these things could have happened, and that they are indicative of a certain tropology concerning those who are revealed to the children of God.
A Verily, that these things were revealed, and under these figures something is hidden to be uncovered by those who ponder the aforementioned parts of the resurrection, is truly not the scope of this present undertaking, but belongs rather to one explaining the Gospel commentaries. That paradoxes appear to men was recorded by Greeks, not only by those who might be suspected of being myth-makers, but also by those who displayed themselves as genuinely seeking to philosophize and truthfully to set forth what came to their attention. Such things we have read in Chrysippus of Soli, and some things about Pythagoras—indeed, and among some of the later ones too, who have lived yesterday and the day before; just as in Plutarch of Chaeronea in the books *On the Soul*, and in Numenius the Pythagorean in his second book *On the Incorruptibility of the Soul*. But if the Greeks tell such things, and especially those among them who philosophize, the things being said are not jokes, nor laughter, nor inventions and myths; but if those who are consecrated to the God of all, and who accept every trial unto death so as not to speak even a falsehood about God up to the point of a voice, report that they have seen the appearances of angels, are they not deemed worthy of being believed, nor are their words counted among true things? But it is not reasonable to judge those who tell the truth or those who lie in such a manner. For those who practice being free from deception, after much and accurate research and examination of things in the places, speak more slowly and safely about which ones tell the truth and which ones lie in the paradoxes they record; since not all demonstrate the mark of being worthy of belief, nor do all clearly show that they have handed down inventions and myths to men. Furthermore, concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, these things must also be said: that at that time one or two angels appeared, announcing that he had risen, and providing for those who believed in such a thing for their own benefit, is not surprising; but that those who always believe in those people, because Jesus has risen, displaying as the fruit of their belief an un-scorned, robust life and a transformation from the nature of evils, should have angels—those who assist in their conversion to God—not forsaking them, does not seem unreasonable to me.
A Celsus also brings an accusation against the account saying that an angel rolled away the stone from the tomb where the body of Jesus was, just like a boy might be employed in some task, speaking in a way that aims to discredit the person. "And as if he had found something clever against the account, he says: 'The Son of God, it seems, was not able to open the tomb, but stood in need of another to move the stone.'" And so that I may not busy myself too much about the details of the place, nor seem to philosophize out of season by putting forward an allegorical interpretation at this time, I will speak about the history itself. It appears more dignified, even on the face of it, that a subordinate and servant should have rolled away the stone than that He who was rising for the benefit of mankind should have done this. B I do not say that those who were plotting against the Word, and wishing to kill Him and to show Him to all as dead and brought to nothing, wanted His tomb to be in no way opened, so that no one might see the Word living after their plot; but that the angel of God—who as a helper of human salvation had come into this world, being stronger than those who were plotting—rolled away the heavy stone, so that those who supposed the Word had died might be persuaded that He is not among the dead, but is alive, and that He goes before those who wish to follow Him, in order that He might demonstrate the things that follow to those whom He had shown them before, but who were not yet able to grasp the higher truths during the time of their earlier introduction. Then, I know not how, after this he throws in—though I do not know what benefit it is thought to provide for his purpose—the account about the angel who came to Joseph regarding Mary, and again, regarding the rescuing of the child when He was being plotted against, so that they might flee into Egypt. We have already addressed these points in the preceding sections in response to what he said. What, moreover, does Celsus intend by the fact that it is also recorded C in the Scriptures that angels were sent to Moses and others? For it does not seem to me to contribute anything to his goal, especially since none of those angels exerted themselves to turn the human race away from sins, as far as their power allowed. Let others, then, have been sent from God. But let this One announce something greater; and since the Jews were sinning and corrupting their religion and doing unholy things, let Him have transferred the kingdom of God to other husbandmen, who take care of their own salvation everywhere in the churches, and who do everything to bring to the God of the universe—through a pure life and a discourse consistent with that life—those who draw their starting points from the teaching of Jesus. Then, next, Celsus says: "Therefore, the same God is for the Jews and for these"—clearly meaning the Christians.
A And as if trying to prove a point B that was not conceded, he continues: "For the 'Great Church' C indeed openly confesses this, and admits as true what the Jews recount regarding the creation of the world, concerning the six days, and the seventh in which God, as Scripture says, rested from his works, withdrawing into his own contemplation; but as Celsus—who neither observes what is written nor understands it—says, 'rested,' which is nowhere written." But on the subject of the creation of the world and the Sabbath rest which is reserved after it for the people of God, the discussion is arcane, deep, and difficult to interpret. D Next, Celsus, I suppose wanting to complete his volume and trying to make it appear great, adds many things unnecessarily: for example, that we claim the same first man as the Jews, and that we trace our genealogy from him in the same way. "And we know nothing of the plots," he says, "which brothers prepared against each other"; although we know that Cain laid a plot against Abel, and Esau against Jacob. For Abel did not plot against Cain, nor Jacob against Esau—which, if it had happened, would have given Celsus a consistent basis for saying, "We say the same things as the Jews regarding the plots which brothers laid against one another." I admit, however, that we describe the migration to Egypt and the departure from there in the same way as them, and not as a "flight," as Celsus thinks; but what does this contribute to the accusation against us or the Jews? Where he thought he had an opportunity to ridicule us in the account of the Hebrews, he called it a "flight"; but where the matter required examining the plagues which are recorded to have come upon Egypt from God, he chose to maintain silence.
If, however, we must speak precisely to Celsus, who thinks that we hold the same opinions as the Jews regarding these matters, we shall say that both parties agree that the books were written by the Holy Spirit; but regarding the interpretation of the things contained in the books, we no longer say the same things. For we do not live as the Jews do, denying that the intention of the legislation is contained in the sense that the letter of the law presents. On the contrary, we affirm that "when Moses is read, a veil lies upon their hearts" (2 Cor. III, 15), for the reason that the intention of the Mosaic law is hidden from those who have refused to walk the way shown by Jesus Christ. But we know that when one turns to the Lord ("the Lord is the Spirit" [2 Cor. III, 17]), the veil is taken away, and "with unveiled face" he beholds "as in a mirror" the glory of the Lord in those senses which the letter of the law had concealed, and becomes a partaker of the divine glory into his own glory. For that which is here called "face" by figure of speech is, to speak more plainly, the intellect, in which is the face of the inner man, which, having perceived the truth of the laws, is filled with light and glory.
And after these things he says: "Let no one think that I am ignorant that some of them will agree that the God who is theirs is the same as the one who is the God of the Jews; but others claim there is another, contrary to Him, and that the Son came from Him." But if he thinks the existence of several sects among Christians is an accusation against Christianity, why should not the disagreement in the sects of those who philosophize be considered, by the same analogy, an accusation against philosophy? And this not regarding trivial and chance matters, but regarding the most necessary ones. It is time, furthermore, for medicine also to be accused because of the sects within it. Let there be, then, among us A those who say that the God of the Jews is not the same as the God they worship; but surely those who prove from the same Scriptures that the God of the Jews and of the nations is one and the same are not to be accused on this account—just as Paul, who came over to Christianity from the Jews, clearly says: "I give thanks to my God, whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience." Let there be also a third class B of those who name some as "animal" and others "spiritual"—I suppose he implies the followers of Valentinus. But what is this to us, the people of the Church, who rebuke those who introduce natures that are saved by their constitution, or that are destroyed by their constitution? Let there be also some who profess to be Gnostics, analogous to the Epicureans who style themselves philosophers. But neither could those be truly philosophers who abolish Providence, nor could those be Christians who introduce absurd fabrications that are displeasing to those in the succession from Jesus. Let there be also some who accept Jesus and on this account boast that they are Christians, yet want to live according to the law of the Jews as do the multitudes of the Jews—(these are the twofold Ebionites, either confessing with us that Jesus was born of the Virgin, or denying that he was born in this way, but rather as other men): what crime does this bring upon the people of the Church, whom Celsus called "the crowds"? And he said there were some also called Sibyllists; perhaps he misunderstood some who were reproaching those who think the Sibyl was a prophetess, and who called such people "Sibyllists." C And it was decreed by the power of the evil demons that there should be death for those who read the volumes of Hystaspes, or those of the Sibyl, or those of the prophets, so that by fear they might turn people away from reading them and gaining knowledge of good things, and keep them enslaved to themselves; which ultimately they were not strong enough to do. For not only do we read them without fear, but, as you see, we bring them to you for examination.
knowing that they will appear acceptable to all. And even if we persuade only a few, we shall have gained much. But since, O men of Greece, the matters of true piety are not contained in poetic meters nor in the education that is highly esteemed among you, now that we have put aside the precision of meters and rhetoric, and as you heed without contention what has been said by her, recognize how many good things will be the cause for you of the advent of our Savior Jesus Christ. Just as God wished the Jews to be saved by giving them prophets, so also He separated from the common herd the most distinguished of the Greeks, raising up prophets—those who were able to receive the benefit from God—in their own dialect, as the Apostle Paul indicates in his preaching to Peter, saying: "Take also the Greek books; recognize the Sibyl, how she signifies one God and the things that are to come; and take up Hystaspes, and read, and you shall find written much more clearly and plainly the Son of God, and how many kings shall make battle array against Christ, hating Him, and those who wear His name, and His faithful ones, and His endurance, and His advent."
Then, heaping up against us a pile of names, he says that he knows certain Simonians who honor Helen (or Helenus, as a teacher), and are called Helenians. But he escapes the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not in any way confess Jesus to be the Son of God, but that Simon for them is the power of God. A And by the operation and incitement of evil demons, the punishment of death has been established against the readers of the books of Hystaspes or the Sibyl or the prophets, so that by fear men might be frightened away from them, and thus not perceive the knowledge of good things by reading those writings, but be kept in their slavery. Which certainly they were not able to effect or lead to their end. For we do not read such writings only without fear, but, as you see, we offer them to you for inspection, knowing that they will be welcome and acceptable to all. And even if we persuade some few, we shall carry away the greatest profit from it. From this place you may understand how much the Fathers esteemed the Sibylline books, which, having spurned the laws of the emperors that threatened a capital penalty for reading them, B they recited—as Justin says—boldly before their own people and the Gentiles. C And he says that he knows certain people who are Simonians, who honor Helen—or Helenus, their teacher—and are called Helenians. But it escapes Celsus's notice that in no way do the Simonians confess Jesus to be the Son of God; rather, for them, Simon is the power of God. D [index: entries preserved]
A They invent many prodigies regarding that man, who had imagined in his mind that if he were to employ similar pretenses to those which he thought Jesus had employed, he would possess as much authority among the people as Jesus did among the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could grasp how Jesus, as a good husbandman of the Word of God, succeeded in causing the greater part of Greece and the greater part of the barbarian lands to be sown with the seed of doctrine, which would lead the soul, having been abducted from every vice, to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows of Marcellians from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others from Mariamne, and others from Martha; but I, who, because of the love of learning as far as I am able, look not only into what is in the Word and the differences of the opinions therein—those, moreover, who oppose the creation of God through their so-called self-control also say those things spoken to Salome which we mentioned earlier. It is recorded, I think, in the Gospel according to the Egyptians; for they say that the Savior himself said: "I came to destroy the works of the female"—of the female, indeed, being desire; the works, the generation and the destruction. B Those who oppose the creation of God through that specious self-control say these things, just as they also relate those things spoken to Salome, which we have previously mentioned. It is current, I believe, in the Gospel according to the Egyptians; for they assert that the Savior himself said, "I came to destroy the works of the female"—of the female, that is, of concupiscence; of the works, that is, of generation and corruption.
Because of this, Cassian says that when Salome asked when the things about which she was inquiring would be known, the Lord said: "When you trample upon the garment of shame, and when the two become one, and the male with the female [is] neither male nor female."
Regarding the refutation of Basilides, for he reveals his arcane doctrines and says C that he composed twenty-four books on the Gospel; and that he named for himself prophets, Barcabas and Barcoph, and others who did not exist, having set them up for himself, and that he bestowed upon them barbarous names for the astonishment of those who are amazed by such things. [He also adds] that he feigned prophets and prophetesses for himself, and imposed names upon them according to his own will. Concerning Basilides, we have as witness Agrippa Castor, a writer very famous in his own time, in Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. Book IV, ch. 7) and Jerome (in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, in the entry for Agrippa). He composed a work in which he refutes the twenty-four commentaries of that heretic which he had written upon the Gospel; he also unmasked the pretenses and the arts of seduction. D While he brings all his secrets into the light, he relates that twenty-four books were written by him on the Gospel, and that he himself feigned for himself prophets, Barcabas and Barcoph, and several others who never existed, and that he imposed upon them certain barbarian names in order to strike terror into the minds of those who are captured by their admiration for such things.
A For example, one Marthus and Marthana, of the race of Constantinus, were two sisters who were worshipped in their own country in place of gods, because they were said to be from the seed of the aforementioned Elxai. Marthus died a short time ago, but Marthana still survives; the misled heretics in that country used to carry off their spittle and the other soils of their bodies, supposedly for the curing of diseases. B Concerning the followers of Marcion, having examined them—but as much as possible, having also truly and piously investigated the accounts of those who have philosophized—we have never had dealings with them. Celsus also makes mention of the Marcionites, who are led by Marcion. Then, so that he may appear to know others besides those whom he already named, he says, in his usual manner, that "others fabricate for themselves another teacher and demon, and grovel in much darkness, more lawlessly and filthily than the initiates of Antinous, who is in Egypt." And it seems to me that, touching upon the facts, he has spoken truly, that some, fabricating C for themselves another demon as master, and groveling, have found a protector in the deep darkness of ignorance. Concerning those who follow Antinous, whom he compares to our Jesus, having spoken of them in the preceding books, we shall not repeat ourselves.
And he says, "These people curse one another with terrible things, both sayable and unsayable; and they would not yield in the slightest toward harmony, entirely detesting one another." And to this we have replied that it is possible to find in philosophy, and in medicine, sects warring against sects. However, those who follow the word of Jesus, and have practiced thinking, D speaking, and acting in harmony with his words, "when reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat"—and we would not say sayable or unsayable things against those who hold different views from what we have believed. But, if we are able, we would do everything to turn them toward the better, through attending only to the Creator and doing all things as those who will be judged. But if the heterodox are not persuaded, we keep the word that commanded such things to them: “A heretical man after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that such a one is subverted and sins, being self-condemned.” Furthermore, those who are truly "blessed the peacemakers," or those who have understood also "blessed the meek," would not detest the corrupters of Christianity, nor would they call those who have been misled "Circes" and "beguiling mixtures."
It seems to me that he has disregarded the apostolic word, which says: “In the latter times some shall depart from the faith…”
giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe.” A He seems to have poorly apprehended what he had heard about certain people who used these words of the Apostle against those who corrupted the Christian religion; hence Celsus says that certain people among the Christians are called "cauteries of the ear." B But he says that some are called "enigmas"—a thing which we have not recorded. In truth, the word "scandal" is very common in these writings, being what we are accustomed to say concerning those who turn the simpler and more easily deceived away from the healthy doctrine. As for the "Sirens," whom he describes as dancing and acting as sophists, sealing the ears and turning those who are persuaded into swine, we know of no one being called by such names, and I believe no one else does either—neither among those in the Word, nor among the heretics. But this man, who boasts of knowing everything, says such things as these: "You will hear all those who are so at variance with one another, and who most shamefully refute themselves with quarrels, saying: 'To me the world is crucified, and I unto the world.'" C This is the only point D
from the letters of Paul. For why should we not mention other six hundred things which are written in a similar manner, such as: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds), casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God." And since he says that "you shall hear all those who are so widely separated, yet all saying: 'The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world,'" we shall prove this assertion also to be false. For there are sects which do not admit the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, such as both the Ebionites and those called Encratites. Those, therefore, who do not use the Apostle as a holy and wise man will certainly not use this utterance of his: "The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." Therefore, Celsus lies in this matter as well. And he indeed spends time in accusing the dissension of the sects, but he does not seem to me to explain at all what he says, nor to have investigated or clearly perceived how it is that those Christians who have made progress in their teachings say they know more than the Jews; whether, namely, it is that they accept the same books but interpret them with a different mind, or whether they do not even accept their writings. For we would find both cases among the sects. After this he says: "Come then, even if they have no foundation for their dogma, let us examine the doctrine itself. But first, we must speak of those things which, through ignorance, they misunderstand and corrupt, boastfully vaunting themselves about matters they do not know. These are the following." And immediately, to certain expressions which are constantly invoked by those who believe in the Christian teaching, he opposes others taken from the philosophers, willing to show that the good things which are thought by Celsus to be taught by the Christians have been said better and more clearly by the philosophers, so that he may draw over to philosophy those who were being captured by the goodness and piety of the doctrines that appear from the very start. And having concluded the fifth volume here, let us begin the sixth from what follows.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS: BOOK SIX
A Since we are undertaking this sixth book, we must defend ourselves against the accusations brought by Celsus against the Christians, holy Ambrose, to fight for the truth as…well as possible, not against the arguments presented by him from philosophy, as one might suppose. B For Celsus has brought forward many things, especially from Plato, making common those things which are able to win over even a person who is intelligent from the Holy Scriptures, saying: "It is better that these things should have been spoken among the Greeks, and without the exaltation and promises from God or the Son of God." We say, therefore, that if those who propagate the things of truth aim at this—to benefit as many as possible, and to bring, as far as it is possible, every person whatsoever to it out of philanthropy, not only the quick-witted, but also the foolish; and again, not Greeks only, but also barbarians, and it is a matter of great kindness if one is able to convert even the most rustic and unlearned—it is clear that one must care for a character in speech that is useful to all and able to win over every hearing. But as for those who have bid a long farewell to the unlearned, as if they were slaves, and who are not able to follow the consistency of the things being announced in the order of discourse, they have cared only for those reared in speeches and learning; these have restricted the social C nature of the truth to a very narrow and small space.
These things I have said in defense of the simplicity of the Scriptures, which is accused by Celsus and others in their words, seeming to be obscured by the brilliance of the words in their composition; because our prophets, and Jesus and his apostles, perceived a manner of announcement, not only containing the truth, but also able to win over the multitudes, until, being exhorted and introduced, each person, according to his power, might ascend to the things spoken ineffably in what seem to be lowly words. And, if it is necessary to dare to say it, the beautiful and studied language of Plato and those who have spoken similarly has benefited few (if indeed it has benefited any), but the language of those who have taught and written more simply, at the same time practically and with an aim toward the many, has benefited more. It is possible, therefore, to see Plato in the hands of those who are considered to be literati only, but Epictetus is admired even by anyone who happens upon him and who has an inclination toward being benefited, D as they feel the improvement from his words. And these things we say, not accusing Plato—for the great world of men has usefully brought forth even him—but showing the intention of those who have said: "And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that our faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Cor. II, 4). The divine word says that it is not sufficient for what is said (even if it be true and most persuasive in itself) to reach the human soul, unless some power be given from God to the speaker, and grace blooms upon the things being said, and this [grace] does not occur without God in those who speak effectively. The prophet says, in the sixty-seventh Psalm: "The Lord will give the word of the gospel [index: entries preserved]
to those who herald it with great power." A Therefore, even if some of their dogmas are the same as those of the Greeks and those of our Word, they do not have the same power to win over and dispose souls accordingly. For this reason, those who were unlearned in Greek philosophy, as disciples of Jesus, traveled through many nations of the world, disposing each of their hearers according to their worth, as the Word intended; and they, in proportion to the inclination of their own free will toward the acceptance of what is good, became much better.
For those who are able to understand: let Plato, the son of Aristo, signify the things concerning the supreme good in one of his letters, and let him say: "The supreme good cannot be expressed in words, but is produced out of long habituation, and suddenly, like a light kindled from a springing fire, it is ignited in the soul." We, having heard these things, agree that they are well said; B "for God revealed these things to them, and all that has been spoken well." For this reason, we say that those who have grasped the truths concerning God, but have not practiced a religion worthy of the truth concerning Him, are subject to the punishments of those who sin. Regarding such persons, Paul says in these very words: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth; for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made, so that they are without excuse; for although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles." C And indeed they hold the truth, as our Word also testifies, when they think that "the supreme good cannot be expressed in words at all," and say that it "comes to pass after much habituation." It cannot be expressed in words at all in the way that other subjects are, but from much... D [Regarding those who have written hitherto or will write hereafter, claiming to know the things in which I am most earnestly engaged — whether they have heard them from me or from others, or have discovered them themselves— of these, I say, I can affirm this one thing: that according to my judgment they know nothing at all of the matter itself. For I have never written about these things, nor shall I ever write, for this subject cannot be expressed in words like other disciplines...]
A, for as if from a fire leaping up, a light becomes kindled in the soul, and it feeds itself from then on. But those who have written such things about the first Good go down to the Piraeus to offer prayers as to a god to Artemis, and to see the festival celebrated by the unskilled multitude; and after having philosophized so greatly about the soul, and having described the way of life of one who has lived well, they abandon the greatness of the things which God manifested to them, and they think lowly and small thoughts, rendering a cock to Asclepius; and they had glimpsed the invisible things of God, and the ideas, from the creation of the world and things sensible, from which they ascend to the things perceived by the mind, having seen clearly enough His eternal power and divinity, yet nonetheless "they became futile in their reasoning, and their B senseless heart" wallows in darkness and ignorance regarding the worship of the Godhead. And it is possible to see those who pride themselves on wisdom and theology bowing down to an image of a perishable man for the sake of the honor of that one, and sometimes descending with the Egyptians to the worship of birds, or quadrupeds, or creeping things. But even if some seem to have ascended above these things, they will be found to have "exchanged the truth of God in the lie, and revered and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator." C And he uncovered himself (for he had been covered) and said what was his final utterance: "Criton," he said, "we owe a cock to Asclepius; pay it, therefore, and do not neglect it." I, however, think that Socrates, son of Sophroniscus, also ordered the cock to be sacrificed so that he might refute the accusation that had been brought against him. For Anytus and Melitus had written against him as one who did not acknowledge the gods. For that he knew the Godhead to be in need of nothing, he has clearly declared elsewhere. For these things too are his, if indeed Plato wrote down his dogmas: "For God did not make the world because D of any need, so that he might gather honors from men, and from other gods and demons, as if gaining some profit from the generation of things; from us, indeed, vapors, but from gods and demons, their own proper services."
A in error of God in the lie, and worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator. Wherefore, since the wise and learned among the Greeks were drawn into error by their practices concerning the Divine, "God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame the wise, and the base things, and the weak, and the despised, and the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are"; and truly, "that no flesh might glory before God." B And our own first wise men, Moses, the most ancient of all, and the prophets after him, knowing that "the supreme good cannot be expressed in words," did indeed write, when speaking of God manifesting Himself to those who are worthy and suitable, that God was seen by Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. But who it was that was seen, and of what sort, and in what manner, and to which part of us, they left it to be investigated by those who can render themselves similar to those to whom God appeared; and He was seen not by the eyes of the body, but by a "pure heart." For indeed, according to our Jesus, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they themselves shall see God." The sudden springing up of light in the soul, as if from fire, the Word knew beforehand, saying through the prophet: C "Light for yourselves the light of knowledge." And John, being later than him, says that "that which has been made in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men," which true light "lightens every man coming into the world," the true and intelligible world, and makes him light of the world. "For this light shone in our hearts for the illumination of the Gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ." Whence the most ancient prophet, having prophesied many generations before the kingdom of Cyrus (for he was older than him by more than fourteen generations), says: "The Lord is my light and my savior, whom shall I fear?" and, "Thy law is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths"; and, "The light of thy countenance, O Lord, was signed upon us"; and, "In thy light shall we see light." D And the Word in Isaiah, inciting us to this light, says: "Shine, shine, Jerusalem; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon thee." And this same one, prophesying about the coming of Jesus, by which men were to be turned away from the worship of idols, and statues, and demons, says that "to those sitting in the region and shadow of death, a light has risen upon them"; and again: "The people that sat in darkness saw a great light." See then the difference between that which was well said by Plato about the supreme good and those things which our prophets...
have said concerning the light of the blessed. And observe that the truth in Plato regarding this was of no benefit as to sincere piety to those who encountered it, nor even to the philosopher himself who had such thoughts about the primary good; whereas the simple language of the divine scriptures has inspired with divine fervor those who truly encounter it—among whom this light is fed by the oil mentioned in a certain parable, which preserves the light for the virgins in the five wise virgins.
Since Celsus also sets forth another passage from Plato’s letter, reading thus: "But if it seemed to me that these things could be adequately written down for the many and spoken, what better deed could have been accomplished by us in life, than to write what is of great benefit to men, and to bring nature forth into the light for all?"—come, let us also discourse briefly on this, whether Plato had anything more solemn than what he wrote, and more divine than what he left behind, or not. We leave it to each one to examine according to his ability, but we shall show that our own prophets also held opinions on certain matters greater than what they wrote, which they did not commit to writing. For Ezekiel receives a scroll of a book, "written within and without, in which were lamentations, and a song, and a woe"; and, the Word having commanded him, he eats the book, so that he might not write it and betray it to the unworthy. And John is recorded to have seen and done the like. But also Paul "heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." And Jesus, who is greater than all these, that he spoke the word of God to his disciples in private, and especially during his withdrawals, has been stated; but what the things were which he spoke is not recorded. For "these things did not seem to them to be adequately writeable for the many, nor speakable."
And, if it be not arrogant to speak about the truth concerning such men, I say that these men saw better than Plato, from the thoughts which they received by the grace of God, what things were to be written, and how they were to be written, and what things were not to be written to the many; and what things were to be spoken, and what were not such. And again, John, teaching us of the difference between things writeable and not writeable, says he heard seven thunders instructing him about certain things and forbidding him to hand down their words in writing. Many things might be found in Moses and the prophets—not only older than Plato, but also than Homer, and the invention of letters among the Greeks—full of things worthy of the grace of God toward them and of their greatness of mind; for these men did not, as Celsus thinks, having misunderstood Plato, say such things; for how was it possible for them to have heard him who had not yet been born? But in order that even if one should bring Celsus’ argument to bear upon the apostles of Jesus, who came to be later than Plato, see whether it is not directly improbable that Paul, the tentmaker...
and Peter, the fisherman, and John, who left his father's nets, having misunderstood the remarks in Plato's letters, should have transmitted such things about God. But Celsus, having already frequently harped on the claim that we demand immediate faith, as if it were something new compared with what was said before, says this again: "It is enough for us that what has been said on these matters has been said."
Since he also sets forth another passage of Plato, by which he says he uses questions and answers to shed light on those who follow his philosophy, come, let us show from the sacred scriptures that the divine word also encourages us toward dialectic. Sometimes Solomon says, "Instruction without inquiry leads astray," and another time the son of Jesus, son of Sirach, who wrote the book entitled Wisdom, says, "The understanding of a fool is as inquiry-less words." There are, therefore, among us very kindly proofs for those who have learned that he who presides over the word must be able to refute those who contradict it. But if some are slothful, and are lazy about attending to the divine readings, and searching the Scriptures, and, according to the command of Jesus, seeking the meaning of the Scriptures, and asking God about them, and knocking at their closed doors, the word is not on that account empty of wisdom.
Then he says, after other Platonic remarks, which show that the good is known to few, "Since the many, filled with an unrighteous contempt, and with a high and vain hope, as if they had learned something solemn, say that certain things are true," Celsus adds: "Plato, having prefixed these things, nevertheless does not hawk prodigies, does not obstruct the mouth of one wishing to inquire what it is that he promises, does not command them to believe beforehand that God is such, and has such a Son, who, having descended, told me these things." I reply to these points that, if I am not mistaken, Aristander wrote concerning Plato that he was not the son of Aristo, but of some specter that had appeared to Amphictione in the form of Apollo. And many other Platonists have said these things in the life of Plato. But what should I say about Pythagoras, who boasted so many prodigies about himself, who showed an ivory thigh in the assembly of the Greeks, and fed eagles and tamed them, and whispered into the ear of a Tarentine ox which was eating green beans, after which it never again touched them; he led down an eagle at the Olympic games, and was seen conversing with it; in Sybaris and Tyrrhenia he grabbed a serpent that was killing any person, and warded it off; he foretold to fishermen the exact number of fish they had hauled in; the river Nessus said to him, "Hail, Pythagoras"; and he warded off pestilences, calmed winds, and predicted earthquakes. Six hundred other things, far more admirable and divine, are recorded about the man, uniformly and consistently. [alt-version omitted]
What must one say of him who, in the assembly of the Greeks, showed his ivory thigh, and who said he recognized the shield he used when he was Euphorbus, and who is said to have appeared in two cities on the same day? But whoever wishes to accuse, as though a tall tale were being told about Plato and Socrates, will also set forth the swan that stood by Socrates in his sleep, and the teacher who said upon the introduction of the young man: "This, then, was that swan." A But he will also take the fact that Plato saw himself having a third eye for a tall tale. Nor will there ever be a lack of malicious men wishing to accuse, to whom the things that appeared to those better than the masses serve as pretexts for slander and accusation; these are the very men who will also mock the daemon of Socrates as a mere fabrication. We, therefore, are not fabricating when we recount the events concerning Jesus; nor did his genuine disciples write down such stories about him. But Celsus, who professes to know everything and cites many of Plato's works, deliberately, I suppose, passes over in silence the passage concerning the Son of God. B C D As these things are acknowledged, and it is impossible that these things should happen to one man, they already think it obvious that one must accept what was said of him as belonging to a superior being, and not a mere man, and that this difficulty [itself] indicates this truth. For it is said among them that "Man is a biped, and a bird, and a third thing." For the third thing is Pythagoras. If one wishes to slander [this], [one will find] the opportunity for slander. The cause [of this slander] is what you have often heard me say in many places, that a certain divine and daemonic [voice] comes to me; which Melitus even mocked in his written accusation.
A regarding the one mentioned by Plato 15 in his letter to Hermeias and Coriscus. The words of Plato are as follows: "And call to witness the God of all things, the leader of both things that are and things that will be, and the father and the lord of the leader 14 and cause; whom we shall all clearly know, to the extent of the capacity of blessed men, if we truly philosophize."
Celsus also sets forth another saying of Plato 15, as follows: "And I have it in mind to speak at still greater length about these things; for perhaps, when they are spoken of, what I am saying may be clearer. For there is a true reason, opposed to one who dares to write about such things, or anything whatever 16, which has often been spoken by me in the past, and seems as though it must be spoken even now. For each of the things that exist, through which it is necessary that knowledge should come to pass, there are three, and the fourth is this; but the fifth must be set down as that which is known and is true. The first of these is a name 17; the second, a discourse; the third, an image; the fourth, knowledge."
And with regard to these, we should say that John, heralded as a voice crying in the wilderness 18, was introduced before Jesus, corresponding to the name in Plato; and Jesus, being shown after John by him, is the second, to whom applies the saying, "The Word became flesh," which corresponds to the discourse in Plato. Plato, therefore, calls the third an "image"; but we, setting the name of "image" to something else, will say more clearly that it is the pattern of the wounds B created in the soul after the discourse, and that this is Christ himself, who is in each one of us, from Christ the Word.
Whether also the wisdom in our perfect ones, which is Christ, corresponds to the fourth thing, knowledge 19, he who is able may discern. Then he says: "Do you see how Plato, although he asserted that it cannot be expressed in words, nevertheless, lest he should seem to retreat to that which cannot be tested, provides a reason for this difficulty? For perhaps even nothing can be expressed in words." But since he brings this forward in support of the argument that one should not simply believe, but should provide a reason for what is believed, we shall also use the words of Paul, who reproves the one who believes in vain, where he says, "Unless you believed in vain" 10.
As far as it depends on him, Celsus compels us to repeat ourselves, repeating [his own words] while saying, after the aforementioned boastings, which were like those of boasters: "Plato does not boast and lie, claiming that he himself is discovering something new, or reporting it as if he were present from heaven; but he acknowledges 20 where these things come from." One might, therefore, say even to these things: C D
A wishing to answer Celsus, that Plato also boasts, when in the Timaeus he makes Jupiter speak to the gods: "Gods of gods, 21 of whom I am the creator and father, and the rest." But if anyone will offer an apology for these things on account of the mind of the speaker in Plato’s Jove, why will not he who examines the mind of the words of the Son of God, or of those in the prophets of the Creator, say even something more than the speech of Jove in the Timaeus? For what characterizes divinity is the prediction of future things, not spoken according to human nature and judged by their results, because it was a divine Spirit which was predicting these things. We do not, therefore, say to everyone who approaches us, "First believe that the one whom I introduce to you is the Son of God," but we apply the discourse to each one according as is appropriate to his character and condition; having learned B to know "how we ought to answer each one." 22 There are some to whom, since they can do no more, we preach this in order to exhort them to believe; but others we approach, as far as we have power, demonstratively through questions and answers. But we do not say that which is mockingly attributed to us by Celsus, that "Believe that the one whom I introduce to you is the Son of God, even if he has been most shamefully bound, or most disgracefully punished, even if yesterday and the day before he was treated in the most reproachful manner in the eyes of all"; nor do we say, "For this very reason, believe the more." For we try to say concerning each matter even more than we have set forth above. After these things Celsus says that: "If some (speaking of Christians) introduce this one, and others another, and it is common to all or even ready-made: 23 'Believe if you wish to be saved, or begone,' what will those who truly wish to be saved do? Shall they cast dice and divine whither they should turn and to whom they should attach themselves?" And against this too, moved by C the evidence of the fact, we shall say these things: If there were more who were recorded as having visited the life of men similarly to Jesus, as sons of God, and each of them having drawn 25 some to himself, so that it were a matter of dispute, on account of the similarity of the claim to be the Son of God, to whom those who believe in him bear witness; there would be room for the, "If some introduce this one, and others another, and it is common to all or even ready-made: 'Believe if you wish to be saved, or begone,'" and the rest. But now Jesus has been preached throughout the whole inhabited world, having visited the race of men as the only Son of God. For those who supposed similarly to Celsus that things were done by trickery 26, and for this reason wished to perform wonders, as if they also were going to prevail over men in a similar way, were exposed as being nothing: such were Simon the Samaritan 27, the magician, and Dositheus from the same region as he.
A For the one claimed to be "the power of God," which is called "the Great," and the other claimed to be the Son of God; nowhere in the world are Simonians to be found now. And yet, so that he might draw more people to himself, Simon used to deliver his disciples from the danger of death, which the Christians had been taught to undergo, having taught them to be indifferent toward idolatry. But no snares were laid for the Simonians from the beginning; for the evil demon who was lying in wait for the teaching of Jesus knew that none of his own purposes would be thwarted by the teachings of Simon. The Dositheans did not even flourish earlier; now they have completely disappeared, so that their entire number is reported to be not even thirty. And Judas of Galilee, as Luke wrote in the Acts of the Apostles, wished to call himself someone great, and before him Theudas; but since their teaching was not from God, they were destroyed, and all who believed them were immediately scattered. We do not, therefore, cast lots with dice to determine where we should turn or to whom we should attach ourselves, as if many were able to distract us by the promise that they had been sent from God to the human race. But enough of these matters.
B Therefore let us proceed to another accusation of Celsus, who does not know our words, but speaks from having misunderstood them: "That we say human wisdom is foolishness before God," while Paul says, "The wisdom of this world is foolishness before God." And Celsus says that "the reason for this was stated long ago." He thinks the cause is that we wish by this expression to draw in only the uneducated and the foolish. But, as he himself noted, he said the same thing earlier; and we have answered the argument as far as we were able. Nevertheless, he wanted to show that this too was invented by us and taken from the wise men among the Greeks, who said that human wisdom is one thing and divine wisdom is another. And he puts forward the words of Heraclitus: one is, where he says, "Human character, indeed, does not possess insights, but divine [character] does," C and another: "A foolish man listens to his genius as a child does to a man." He also sets forth these words from the Apology of Socrates written by Plato: "For I, O men of Athens, have acquired this name through nothing other than wisdom. And what is this wisdom? That which is perhaps human wisdom; for in truth, it is likely that I am wise in this." These things Celsus sets forth, to which I...
shall add the following from Plato’s letter to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus: A "I tell Erastus and Coriscus, even though I am an old man, that besides that most beautiful wisdom concerning the forms, they also need another wisdom which guards against the wicked and unjust, and they need a kind of defensive power. For they are inexperienced, as they have spent a great deal of their life with us, who are moderate and not evil. For this reason, I said they need these things, so that they might not be compelled to neglect true wisdom, and to attend more than is fitting to human and necessary things." B Therefore, according to these words, there is one wisdom which is divine and another which is human. Human wisdom is what is called, in our terms, the wisdom of the world, which is foolishness before God; but divine wisdom, which is distinct from the human, provided it is divine, comes to those whom the grace of God makes suitable for receiving it. It comes especially to those who, having known the difference between each of these wisdoms, say in their prayers to God: "For even if one were perfect among the sons of men, if the wisdom that is from Thee is absent, he shall be reckoned as nothing." We say that human wisdom is an exercise for the soul, but divine wisdom is its end. This is also called the solid food of the soul by the one who said: "Solid food is for the perfect, for those who have their senses trained by practice to discern both good and evil." And this opinion is truly ancient, and not, as Celsus thinks, to be traced back to the antiquity of Heraclitus and Plato regarding these things. For the prophets far above them distinguished between these two wisdoms; it suffices, however, for the present to mention what is said in the words of David regarding the one who is wise in divine wisdom: "He shall not see corruption," he says, "when he sees the wise dying." Divine wisdom, then, being distinct from faith, is the first of what are called the gifts of God; and after that, the second, for those who know how to refine such things, is what is called knowledge; and third, since even the simpler ones must be saved as they approach piety according to their ability, is faith. Wherefore it is said by Paul: "For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another, the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another, faith in the same Spirit." Thus, you would not find just anyone participating in divine wisdom, but those who are preeminent and surpass all those who pay attention to Christianity. Nor does one set forth for the "most uneducated," or "slaves," or "most ignorant" the matters concerning divine wisdom. C And yet Celsus says some are the most uneducated, and slaves, and most ignorant, namely, those who do not know, as I think, his precepts, nor have they been schooled in the disciplines of the Greeks.
A We say that those are most uneducated who are not ashamed to speak to inanimate objects, and to beg for health from the infirm, for life from the dead, and for assistance from that which is most helpless. And even if some say that these are not gods, but rather B images and symbols of true gods, nonetheless, even these, imagining that the handiwork of craftsmen can represent divinity, are uneducated, slaves, and ignorant; so much so that even the lowliest among us have been freed from this lack of education and ignorance, and we say that divine hope is understood and grasped by the most prudent. We do not say that it is C impossible for one who has not been exercised in human wisdom to contain the more divine; and we confess that all human wisdom is foolishness when compared with the divine. Thereafter, when he ought to have engaged in reasoning, he calls us charlatans, and says that we flee from those who are more refined, as they are not ready to be deceived, but that we ensnare those who are more rustic. D He does not see that from the beginning, there were among us men of wisdom schooled in external disciplines—Moses, indeed, in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and Daniel, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael in all the learning of the Assyrians, such that they were found to be ten times wiser than all the sages who were there. And even now, the Churches have, in proportion to their multitudes, a few wise men who have come forth from what we call worldly wisdom; and they also have those who have progressed from that to divine wisdom.
Thereafter, Celsus, as if he had heard about humility but had not carefully understood it, wishes to disparage what is taught among us; he thinks it is a misunderstanding of the words of Plato, who says somewhere in his *Laws*: "God, as also the old tradition says, holding the beginning, and end, and middle of all existing things, proceeds in a straight line according to nature. And justice—the punisher of those who have departed from the divine law—always follows him; whoever is about to be happy, holding fast to her, follows, humble and adorned." He does not see that it was said by men far older than Plato in a prayer: "Lord, my heart is not lifted up, my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me. If I did not humble myself..." By these words, it is at the same time shown that he who is humble does not necessarily humble himself in an unseemly and ugly manner, thrown headlong upon his knees and prostrate, wearing the clothing of the wretched, and heaping dust upon himself. For he who is humble according to the Prophet, while walking in great and marvelous things, and in the doctrines that are truly great and which transcend him, he humbles himself beneath the mighty hand of God.
B But if some, because of their simplicity 45, not understanding the doctrine of humility, act in such a way, the blame is not to be laid upon the doctrine, but we must forgive the simplicity of those who set before themselves the better things, yet through their simple-mindedness fail to reach them. For he is more truly humble and adorned than the one represented by Plato, who is indeed adorned because he walks in great and marvelous things beyond himself; but he is humble, because even while he is in these things, he humbles himself of his own free will—not under just anyone, but under the mighty hand of God, indeed through Jesus, the teacher of such lessons, who 46 "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." And so this doctrine of humility is of such great import that it does not have an ordinary teacher concerning it, but our Saviour himself says: "Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls."
After this, concerning the judgment of Jesus against the rich, saying, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle 45 than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," he says it was said directly from Plato, and that Jesus corrupted 46 the Platonic view, in those things where Plato said: "That it is impossible for one who is exceedingly good to be also exceedingly rich." But who—even he who can apply his mind, even moderately, to such matters—would not laugh at Celsus, when he hears, not only those who believe in Jesus, but even the rest of mankind, that Jesus, who was born and raised among the Jews, and considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not learned letters—not only those of the Greeks, but not even those of the Hebrews, as the truth-loving Scriptures 47 concerning him testify—had read Plato; and, being pleased with his view pronounced concerning the rich, that "it is impossible to be exceedingly good and rich," corrupted it and made it to be: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God?" If Celsus, in reading the Gospels, had not been possessed by hatred and hostility, and had he been a lover of the truth, he would have considered why a camel was chosen—an animal that is 49 of such size—and why he who said that the way which leadeth unto life is narrow intended by the narrow eye of the needle...
Book Sixth
A ...and why this animal is recorded in the Law as unclean, having indeed something acceptable, that it chews the cud, but also something reprehensible, that it does not divide the hoof. He would have also examined how often and for what reasons the camel is mentioned in the divine Scriptures, so that he might perceive the intention of the Word regarding the rich. He would not have left unexamined the fact that the poor are blessed by Jesus, while the rich are pronounced unhappy—whether he speaks of these poor and rich in terms of the sensible realm, or whether the Word knows a certain poverty that is worthy of all praise and riches that are entirely reprehensible. For not even an ordinary person would praise the poor indiscriminately, among whom many are of most depraved character. But enough of these things in this place. B Indeed, our authors have written concerning the kingdom of God. But Celsus brings forward none of these things, as if judging nothing worthy of being transcribed, or perhaps because he has not read them; rather, he extracts sentences from the epistles of Plato and the *Phaedrus*, as if these were spoken with divine inspiration, and as if our scriptures contained nothing similar. Let us, therefore, set forth a few things to compare with the Platonic ones; though these Platonic notions hold a semblance of probability, they were not able to lead the philosopher himself to worship the Creator of all things with the piety becoming a philosopher. For if he had possessed piety, he should not have adulterated and defiled it with the vice that we call idolatry, or with superstition, as the common people say.
In the seventeenth Psalm, according to a Hebrew manner of speaking, it is said concerning God that C «He made darkness his hiding place,» to signify that the things that ought to be known regarding God according to his merit are obscure and impenetrable, because he hides himself as if in darkness from those who cannot bear the splendor of his knowledge nor contemplate him; partly due to the impurity of the mind, which is bound to this lowly human body, and partly because that [human] power is too narrow to understand God. And so that it might be made manifest how rare and granted to how few it is to know God, it is narrated that Moses «entered into the thick darkness where God was.» Again concerning Moses: «Moses alone shall approach the Lord, but the rest shall not approach.» And again, so that the prophet might show the depth of the dogmas concerning God, which happen to be ungraspable to those who do not have the Spirit that D «searches all things, even the deep things of God,» he said: «Abyss as a garment is his covering.» But also the Savior... [alt-version omitted]
B our Lord, the Word of God, indicating the magnitude of the knowledge of the Father—that it is received and known according to merit primarily by Him alone, and secondarily by those whose ruling faculty is illuminated by the Word Himself and God—says: «No one knows (54) the Son except the Father, nor the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.» For neither is anyone able to know the unbegotten (55) and the first-born of every created nature according to merit, as the Father who begat Him, nor the Father as the living Word and His wisdom and truth; by whose participation He removes from the Father what is called darkness, which He set as His hiding-place, and what is called His covering, the abyss; and by thus revealing the Father, as much as one is able to know Him, one knows Him. I have considered it sufficient to set forth these few things out of the many that have been understood by holy men concerning God, showing that the writings of the holy prophets possess something more august than the Platonic arguments admired by Celsus, to those who have eyes capable of seeing the august things of the Scriptures.
The statement of Plato (57), which Celsus set forth, runs as follows: «All things are about the king of all, and all things are for his sake, and he is the cause of all beautiful things. The second about the second things; and the third about the third things. The human soul, therefore, strives to learn what these things are, looking at those things related to itself, of which none C adequately suffices. But concerning the king, and the things of which I have spoken, there is nothing of the sort.»
I could have set forth the matters concerning those called Seraphim among the Hebrews, recorded in Isaiah, covering the face and the feet of God (58); and the matters concerning those named Cherubim, which Ezekiel described, and concerning their quasi-forms, and in what manner God is said to be borne upon the Cherubim. But since these things have been spoken very covertly for the sake of the unworthy and the unrefined, who are unable to follow the grand design and majesty of theology, I did not think it fitting to discuss them in this treatise.
Following these things, Celsus says that «some Christians who have heard Platonic expressions boast of the God who is above the heavens (59), transcending the heaven of the Jews.» In these matters he does not clarify whether they also transcend the God of the Jews, or only the heaven by which they swear. D Regarding those who acknowledge another—
as they promise God, different from Him whom the Jews also adore, it is not our present purpose to speak; A but rather to defend ourselves and to show that the prophets of the Jews, having been before Plato, could not have taken anything from him. We have not, therefore, received from him the saying, “All things are around the King of all, and all things are for his sake”; but we have learned these things from the prophets, who spoke them better, as Jesus and his disciples interpreted the intent of the Spirit that was in the prophets—which was none other than the Spirit of Christ. Nor, moreover, was the philosopher the first to present the matters concerning the supercelestial place; for David long ago presented the depth of the abundance of the contemplations concerning God held by those who have ascended above things sensible, having said in the Book of Psalms: “Praise God, O heavens of heavens, and the water that is above the heavens; let them praise the name of the Lord” (Ps. CXLVIII, 4). And I do not discourage [the view] that Plato, having learned the statements from the *Phaedrus* from certain Hebrews, as some have even recorded, and having encountered the prophetic words, set forth the things in which he said: “The supercelestial place no poet of those here has ever sung, nor will he ever sing according to its worth,” and the rest. Among which is also this: “For the essence, both colorless and formless, and intangible, truly existing, the pilot of the soul, visible to the mind alone, around which the genus of true knowledge has this location.” And, having been instructed by those words, our Paul, longing for things supramundane and supercelestial, and doing everything for their sake so that he might attain them, says in the second Epistle to the Corinthians: “For the present lightness of our affliction works for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, while we look not to the things that are seen, but to the things that are not seen. For the things that are seen are temporary; but the things that are not seen are eternal” (II Cor. IV, 17–18). For he clearly presents to those capable of hearing that the sensible things are those he calls “things seen,” while he names the intelligible things, and those grasped by the mind alone, “things not seen.” And he knows the sensible and seen things to be temporary, while the intelligible and unseen are eternal; and being desirous of being present at the contemplation of those things, being helped by the longing for them, he considered every affliction to be nothing and light; and even in the very time of affliction and labors B he was in no way weighed down by them, but was lightened because of the vision of those things, C and while in the midst of labors and pains, he was so far from being oppressed by them that he deemed all torment to be light and worthy of contempt. Plato also followed our legislation, and it is evident that he investigated each of the things spoken therein. D “Chief guide” for “chief.”
A Since we are not at all burdened by them, but are instead lightened of every trial by that very vision, for “we have a great High Priest” who, by “the greatness of his power” and his intellect, has “passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God,” who has promised to those who have genuinely learned the divine things and have lived in a manner worthy of them, that he will lead them to things above the world; for he says, “that where I go, you may be also.” For this reason, we hope that after the labors and contests here, we shall arrive at the highest heavens, and having received the “fountains of water springing up into eternal life,” according to the teaching of Jesus, and having contained rivers of contemplations, we shall be with the waters that are said to be “above the heavens,” praising the name of the Lord. And so long as we praise him, we shall not be carried about by the rotation of the heaven, but shall always be in the vision of the invisible things of God; no longer known to us from the creation of the world by the things that have been made, but as the genuine disciple of Jesus named it, saying, “But then face to face”; and, “When that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”
B The Scriptures received in the churches of God do not proclaim seven heavens, or any strictly limited number of them at all; but the discourses seem to teach either that the "heavens" are the spheres of what the Greeks call the planets, or something else more secret. And while Celsus says that there is a path for souls to the earth and from the earth through the planets, according to Plato, Moses, our most ancient prophet, in the vision of our governor the prophet, uses a mind that alone is a spectator, concerning which he has this manner. We shall not be carried about by the rotation of the heaven. For the things called immortal, when they reach the summit, having gone outside, stand upon the "back" of the heaven; and its rotation carries them around as they stand. And they contemplate the things outside of the heaven. Regarding the "path for souls to the earth." C When he had constituted the whole, he divided souls equal in number to the stars, and assigned each soul to each star, and having mounted them as into a chariot, he showed them the nature of the universe, and spoke to them of the fated laws: that there would be one first and ordered generation for all, so that no one might be diminished by him. Having legislated all these things for them, so that he might be free of blame for their subsequent wickedness, he sowed some into the sun, others into the moon, and others into the instruments of time. D He brought the souls down like a stream, some from the moon, some from the sun, and the others from the rest of the wandering stars, into the lot of the other. Whoever indeed should master these, would live justly; but having been mastered [by them], [would live] unjustly. And he, on the one hand, who had lived the time befitting him, having returned again to the dwelling of his companion star, would have a happy life; but having failed in these things, he would change into a woman's nature in the second birth. At the thousandth year, both arrive at the allotment and choice of the second life, and each chooses whatever life she wishes. As to our patriarch
Jacob, he says that through a dream sent from God, he saw a ladder reaching to the heavens, and angels of God ascending and descending upon it, and the Lord supported by its summits; A whether he is hinting at these things or something greater than these in his discourse concerning the ladder—regarding which a book has also been composed by Philo, worthy of examination by one who is prudent and sensible among those who love the truth.
Next to these, Celsus, wishing to display his own wide learning in his discourse against us, sets forth also certain Persian mysteries, in which he says: «These things are also hinted at by the doctrine of the Persians, and by the initiation of Mithras among them. For there is in it a symbol of the two celestial revolutions—that of the fixed stars and that which takes place among the planets—and of the passage of the soul through these. The symbol is of this kind: a ladder with high gates, and upon it an eighth gate. The first of the gates is of lead, the second of tin, the third of bronze, the fourth of iron, the fifth of composite coinage, the sixth of silver, and the seventh of gold. They assign the first to Saturn, indicating by the lead the slowness of the star; the second to Venus, comparing to it the brightness and softness of tin; the third to Jupiter, the bronze-based and firm one; the fourth to Mercury, for both iron and Mercury are patient of all labors, profit-seeking, and tireless; the fifth to Mars, uneven and varied because of the alloy; the sixth, the silver one, to the Moon; the seventh, the golden one, to the Sun, imitating the colors of these two.»
Plato also spoke of two openings; and of these, they say that Cancer is the one through which souls descend, and Capricorn the one through which they ascend. Plato says there are two openings: one through which those ascending into heaven pass, and another through which those descending to earth pass. And the theologians also set the Sun and Moon as gates of the soul; and they maintain that they ascend through the Sun and descend through the Moon.
A their colors. Next, he examines the cause of the order of the stars, listed in this way, which is indicated through symbols in the names of the remaining material; he adds or sets forth musical ratios, according to the theology of the Persians. Celsus, however, is not satisfied with these, but adds a second account, again hanging upon musical theories. It seemed to me, however, that to set forth the wording in these matters of Celsus is absurd, and similar to what he himself has done, in having untimely assumed for the accusation of Christians and Jews not only the things of Plato, so as to be content with those, but also the – as he says – mysteries of the Persian Mithras and the account of them. For however these things may be, whether false or true, B to those who profess the things of Mithras and to the Persians we shall leave it to examine. Why, then, did he set forth these things more than any of the other mysteries along with their account? For it does not seem that the things of Mithras are exceptional among the Greeks compared to the Eleusinian mysteries, or those things handed down to those who are being initiated in Aegina to Hecate. But if, indeed, he wished to set forth barbarian mysteries along with their account, why not rather those of the Egyptians, in which many take pride, or those of the Cappadocians concerning Artemis at Comana, or those of the Thracians, or even those of the Romans themselves, when the noblest C of the senate are being initiated? But if it seemed untimely to him to compare any of those, as in no way contributing to the accusation of the Jews or Christians, how did the same thing not seem untimely to him regarding the setting forth of the Mithraic things? But if anyone should wish to take the sources for the more mystical contemplation of the entry of souls into divine things, not from the most obscure sect which he cited, but from books, sometimes Jewish and read in their synagogues, which Christians accept, and sometimes Christian alone; let him read those things seen by the prophet at the end of the prophecy of Ezekiel; in which various gates are inscribed, hinting at something concerning the diverse entry of the more divine souls into higher things; let him read also from the Apocalypse of John the things concerning the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and its foundations and gates. And if he can learn through symbols the way indicated for those traveling to divine things; let him read the numbers inscribed by Moses, and let him seek someone able to guide him into the mysteries concerning the encampments of the sons of Israel that have been recorded; which ones are ranked according to the east, as first, and which ones at the D south…
and which ones at the sea, and which ones are the last at the north. For he will see things worth observing in those places, and not, as Celsus thinks, things that require foolish listeners or base slaves. For one will discern in them A the nature of the numbers that are listed in them, and those which are applied to each tribe; regarding which it does not seem appropriate for us to set forth at this time. Let Celsus, however, and those who study his book, know that nowhere in the genuine and divinely trusted Scriptures are seven heavens spoken of; nor did our prophets receive anything from the Persians or the Cabiri, nor the apostles of Jesus, nor the Son of God himself.
Following the argument taken from the Mithraic mysteries, Celsus promises that one who wishes to compare the initiation of the Christians with the aforementioned initiation of the Persians, by setting these side by side and exposing the Christian matters, will thus see the difference between them. And where he knew how to mention names of sects, he did not hesitate to set forth those he seemed to know; but when he ought rather—if he had the knowledge—to have done so, and to have taught which sect uses the diagram that he has described, this he has not done. It seems to me that even in these matters, he has spoken from hearsay regarding the most undistinguished sect of the Ophites, I believe, and has set forth the content of the diagram B in part. But we, in accordance with our love of learning, have come across it, in which we found the fictions of men whom Paul described as those «who penetrate houses and lead captive silly women weighed down with sins, moved by various desires, always learning and never able to arrive at the knowledge of the truth.» So utterly devoid of all credibility was the diagram, that not even silly women who are easily deceived, nor the most rustic people, ready to be led by any appearance of credibility, would have agreed with the diagram. At any rate, although we have traveled through many parts of the earth, and have inquired of those who everywhere profess to know something, we have never met anyone who C boasted of understanding it.
A We have, however, encountered [one] who set forth the [doctrines] of the diagram. In it was a diagram of ten circles, separated from one another, yet bound together by a single circle, which was said to be the soul of all things, and was called Leviathan. B Whom the Jewish Scriptures, whatever they may hint at, have said were fashioned by God as a mockery. For we found in the Psalms: "Everything you made in wisdom; the earth is filled with your creation. This sea, great and spacious, there ships pass through, C animals small and great, [and] this dragon which you fashioned to mock it." But for "dragon," *Leviathan* was in the Hebrew. Therefore, the impious diagram called the one so clearly condemned in the prophet as Leviathan the soul that has passed through all things. We found in it also the one named Beemoth D as if set after the lowest circle. And this Leviathan, he who fashioned that little diagram, inscribed it upon the circle and its center, setting forth its name twice. Furthermore, Celsus says the diagram is "marked off by a thick black line," and he claimed that this was said by him to be Gehenna, which is also Tartarus. Finding Gehenna written in the Gospel as a place of punishment, we investigated whether it was called by that name anywhere in the ancient scriptures, and especially since the Jews also use the name. We found that where it is named "the valley of the son of Ennom" in the Scripture, in the Hebrew we have learned that instead of "valley"—
"—A 64 namely, the valley of Ennom and Gehenna; and by observing the readings, we find also in the lot of the tribe of Benjamin Gehenna, or the valley of Ennom, where Jerusalem also was. And by examining the consistency of the heavenly Jerusalem being from the lot of Benjamin and the valley of Ennom, we find something transferred to the place concerning punishments, regarding the purification with torment of certain souls, according to this: "Behold, the Lord enters as a refiner's fire, and as the plant of the washers; and he shall sit refining and purifying as silver and gold." According to this same subject regarding the valley, and the place of punishments. And since punishments of those being refined occur around Jerusalem—those who have taken into the substance of their own soul things from wickedness, which is figuratively called lead in some places (wherefore impiety in Zechariah was seated upon a talent of lead)—as many things as might be said concerning the place, it is not for all, nor is it the present time, to narrate; nor even is it safe to entrust the clarity of such things to writing, since the many do not need more instruction beyond that concerning the punishment of those who sin, for it is not useful to advance into what lies beyond it, on account of those who, with difficulty and through fear of eternal punishment, even so restrain themselves to an extent from wickedness and the flood of sins resulting from it. Neither the diagram nor Celsus knows the discourse concerning Gehenna. Otherwise, neither would those authors have aggrandized their paintings and diagrams as if representing the truth through them, nor would Celsus, in his writing against the Christians, have inserted into his accusations against the Christians things which are in no way said by Christians, but by certain others who perhaps no longer even exist, but have completely vanished and are reduced to very few and easily numbered persons. And just as it does not befit those who philosophize on the teachings of Plato to apologize for Epicurus and his impious dogmas, so neither does it for us concerning those things in the diagram and those things said against it by Celsus. Wherefore, as superfluous and uttered in vain, we leave what Celsus said about these matters. For we would accuse Celsus himself more sharply before those held by such discourses. Following what concerns the diagram, and (not even from hearsay) concerning what is called by those— B C D
A in the ecclesiastical seal, he exposes some strange and mutual utterances for himself: as if the one who applies the seal were called the father, and the one who is being sealed were called the junior and the son, and were responding: “I have been anointed with white ointment from the wood of life,” [(1)] a thing which we have not heard to occur even among those from the heresies. Then he also defines a number [(2)] of the angels being spoken of by those who transmit the seal: “Seven, standing on either side of the soul of the one departing from the body [(3)]; some of the light, others of those being named archontic; and he says that the ruler of those being named archontic is called a cursed God.” B Then, having seized upon the expression, he reasonably accuses those who dare to say this. For this cause we too join in the indignation of those who blame such people, if indeed there are any who call the God of the Jews—the One who rains and thunders, and the creator of this world, and the God of Moses and of the creation according to him—a cursed God. But it seems Celsus has wished to intend something through these things that is not fair-minded, but most ungrateful from the philosopher towards us. For he wished those who are unacquainted with our matters, having encountered his [(4)] writing, to wage war against us, as if we call the beautiful creator of this world a cursed God. And it seems to me that he has done something similar to the Jews, who at the beginning of the instruction of Christianity C spread a defamation of the Word: as if, having slaughtered a child, they partake of its flesh; and again, that those attached to the Word, wishing to do the things of darkness, extinguish the light, and each is joined to whomsoever he encounters. Which defamation, although irrational, long ago held sway over very many, persuading those alien to the Word that such are the Christians; and even now it still deceives some, who, because of such things, are averse even to coming into a simpler communion of discussion with Christians. Such a thing, then, it seems to me, Celsus is contriving to expose [(6)], as if Christians say that D the creator is a cursed God, and he perhaps is to be deleted.
A Indeed, by persuading the reader to be credulous regarding these calumnies against us, he is forced to compel the total extermination of Christians, as men guilty of extreme impiety. B Then, confusing all things so as to provide the cause for why the God of the creation, which Moses described, is called accursed, he says, "according to the opinion of those who think such things about him, he is worthy of being held in execration; since he cursed the serpent, who gave the knowledge of good and evil to the first men." But he ought to have known that those who take the side of the serpent, as if he were an author of good advice to men—and in this matter they far exceed the myths of the Titans and the Giants, and for this reason they are called Ophiani—are so far from being Christians that they slander Jesus no less than Celsus does; nor is anyone admitted into their society unless he has cursed Jesus. C See, therefore, how absurd it was for Celsus, in his books against the Christians, to set forth as Christians men who do not even endure to hear the name of Jesus, not even as one might hear of a man who was wise or of moderate character. What could be more foolish or more insane, not only than those who wish to be named from the serpent as from an author of good things, but also than Celsus, who imagined that the Christians [think] the serpent was charmed or softened into tameness by some sorcery, or that it was rendered harmless by some other work of the devil—for they adore such a creature, and they apply the term "Eucharist" to the bread D that has been wrapped around by it.
CONCERNING THE OPHIANI
Epiphanius, B Heresy 37, which is that of the Ophiani: "For they nurture a serpent by nature in a certain chest; and at the time of their mysteries, having piled breads upon a table, they invite the serpent to the cavern. And when the cavern is opened, it comes forth. And thus, the serpent having ascended according to its own wisdom and craftiness, already knowing their foolishness, it climbs onto the table and wraps itself around the breads. And this they say is a perfect sacrifice. Whence, as I have heard from someone, not only do they break the breads in which the same serpent has been wrapped and distribute them to those who receive them, but each one kisses the serpent on its mouth, or [it is moved] by certain incantations to mildness, or it is rendered harmless by another trick of the demon. The miserable ones adore this, and call it 'Eucharist,' when it has encompassed the breads with its coiled movements." C Theodoret, book *On Heretical Fables*, on the Ophiani: "Some of them say that Christ, having been transformed into the shape of a serpent, entered the womb of the Virgin, and thus the miserable ones understand the saying of the Apostle: 'Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery,' etc." (Spencer).
But Origen is either mistaken in this passage when he says that the Ophiani do not admit anyone into their society unless he has cursed Jesus, nor do they endure to hear the name of Jesus, not even as a man of wise and moderate character; or those impious Ophiani whom he knew were entirely different from the Ophiani of whom Irenaeus writes in Book 1, Chapter 2: "For they indeed said that Jesus was generated from the Virgin through the operation of God, and was wiser, purer, and more just than all men; that Christ descended, united with Sophia, and thus became Jesus Christ." Philastrius, book 1, chapter 1, commemorates the Ophiani who arose before the coming of Christ. Perhaps the Ophiani of whom Origen treats here were branches of these.
A of the Christians to make accusations against the Ophiani? The philosopher of the Greeks, B who loved simplicity and proposed himself as a model of a happy life—in that he was not hindered from being happy by his complete lack of possessions—called himself a Cynic. But these impious ones, who take their name from the serpent, which is most hostile to human beings and most horrifying—not as humans, to whom the serpent is an enemy, but as serpents themselves—boast in being called Ophiani, and they brag about a certain Euphrates as the introducer of those impious teachings.
Next, as if railing at Christians and accusing those cursed ones who call the God of Moses and his law evil, and believing that Christians are the people who say these things, he says: "What could be more foolish or more mad than this senseless wisdom? For what was the Jewish lawgiver at fault? And how is it that you take his creation of the world for yourself through some, as you say, typical allegories, or the law of the Jews, yet you acknowledge, O most impious one, the creator of the world, who promised all things to them, who promised to increase their race to the ends of the earth, and who promised to raise them from the dead with this very flesh and blood, and who was the inspirer of the prophets—and yet you rail at him? But whenever you are hard-pressed by these people, you confess that you worship the same God; but when your teacher Jesus and the Moses of the Jews prescribe contrary things, you seek another God in place of him and the Father."
And in these matters, Celsus, that most noble philosopher, clearly slanders the Christians, saying that when Jews pressure them, they confess that they worship the same God as them; but when Jesus prescribes things contrary to Moses, they seek another in his place. For whether we are conversing with Jews or are among ourselves, we know one and the same God, whom the Jews also formerly worshipped and whom they now profess to worship, in no way acting impiously toward him. Nor do we say that God will raise the dead with this flesh and blood, as it has been said in the preceding pages. For we do not say that the animal body which is sown in corruption, in dishonor, and in weakness, is raised as it was sown. But regarding these points, we have spoken reasonably enough in the preceding pages.
Following this, he repeats the things concerning the seven archons. As for the heresies, some are named from a person, such as that from Valentinus, and Marcion, and Basilides, even if they boast of bringing forth the opinion of Matthias; for the teaching—like the tradition—of all the apostles was one. Others are named from a place, as the Peratici; and others from a nation, as that of the Phrygians.
A of those called—as I think—by the Ophites. And indeed, in the diagram that we ourselves acquired on account of them, we found the order set forth just as Celsus described. Celsus, for his part, said that the first was fashioned in the likeness of a lion, without disclosing the name which those truly most impious people imposed upon him. But we found, from that impious diagram, that the demon with a leonine form is called Michael, a name which in the sacred Scriptures is attributed to the holy angel of the Creator. Again, Celsus claimed that the next, the second, is a bull; but the diagram we held said that Suriel is the one with the form of a bull.
B Furthermore, [they say] that there is an unknown Father, who created powers, principalities, and authorities; and that the angels departed from the higher power, and that seven of them created the world and the things in it; and that the world was allotted to each angel by division.
C Tertullian, *Adversus Valentinianos*, ch. 20: “When He sets the sevenfold stage of the heavens above His own throne: whence it is also called the Sabbath, from the week of His throne.” Irenaeus, lib. 1, ch. 30: “He made also seven heavens, above which they say the Demiurge is, and on account of this they call him the Hebdomad.” And below: “But they say there are seven heavens, and that they are intellectual; they hand down that they are angels, and the Demiurge, and the angel himself, etc.” Irenaeus, lib. 1, ch. 24, on Saturninus: who are entirely unknown to Christians, [but] are usurped, I think, by the Ophites. And indeed, in the diagram that we have endeavored to compare, I find the same order of demons that Celsus exposed. And Celsus says the first has the form of a lion, while remaining silent about the name that was imposed upon him by those truly impious men. But I discovered from that impious diagram that that demon with the leonine form is called Michael, which name is attributed in the holy Scriptures to the holy angel of the Creator. He whom Celsus says is the second, a bull, the diagram names Suriel, the bull-formed. The third, by Celsus’s witness, is of doubtful life and a horrible whistling; and in the diagram that third one is Raphael... D [the following words concern the conjectures of Joannes Croius to be published at the end of this tome; against whom Dionysius Petavius wrote an appendix to the notes on Synesius. I shall here only append those things which pertain to the text of Origen, omitting those which look to explanation and elucidation, to be sought if one wishes from the book of Croius itself. Meanwhile, Spencer notes this:] I believe the Ophites borrowed this fiction from the most ancient heretics, namely the Gnostics, Saturninus, Basilides, and Valentinus. Listen to Epiphanius, heresy 26, which is that of the Gnostics, p. 91: “They relate that these are the names of the greater princes. In the highest sphere, they say, resides Jao. In the second, Saclas, who presides over debaucheries and lusts. In the third, Seth. In the fourth, they place Daden. For they assert there is a fourth heaven, and a third; and again a fifth, in which they place Elox, who is also called Adonaeus. But others maintain that Jaldabaoth occupies the sixth, or others Elif. But some define that there is a seventh, where Sabaoth sits. This is denied by others, who attribute that seventh station to Jaldabaoth. In the eighth they imagine the domicile of Barbelo to be.” To the aforementioned princes they have added others, and as many heavens, until they reached the three hundred and sixty-fifth. Epiphanius, heresy 24; Theodoret, *On Heretical Fables*, on Basilides: “Furthermore, inventing names of angels, they said that some have the first heaven, others the second; and so on in order up to the three hundred and sixty-fifth.” These seven greater princes Irenaeus enumerated differently, lib. 1, ch. 30: “For he who is the first from the Mother is called Jaldabaoth; he who is from him, Jao; and he who is from him, the great Sabaoth; the fourth, Adonaeus; and the fifth, Eloaeus; and the sixth, Oraeus; the seventh, and last of all, Eloaeus.” There is another enumeration of the seven princes, or angels, differing from both, which is found among the Basilidian Gems, table four, in Jo. Chifflet’s *Abraxas Proteus*: MICHAEL GABRIEL OURIEL RAPHAEL ANANAEL. [index: entries preserved]
A Then Celsus speaks of a third, an amphibious power, hissing fearfully; but the diagram says the third is Raphael, dragon-formed. Again, Celsus says the fourth has the form of an eagle; but the diagram says that Gabriel is the eagle-formed one. Then Celsus says the fifth has the face of a bear; but the diagram says that Thauthabaoth is the bear-formed one. Then Celsus says the sixth is recorded among them as having the face of a dog; but the diagram says he is Erataoth. Then Celsus says the seventh has the face of an ass, and is called Thaphabaoth or Onoel; but we have found in the diagram that he is called Onoel or Thartharaoth, being a certain ass-formed being. It seemed good to us also to set forth such matters accurately, so that we might not appear to be ignorant of what Celsus professed to know, but rather that we might demonstrate that we Christians have known them more accurately than he, not as being Christians' doctrines, but as those of men entirely alien to Jesus, or the Savior, or God, or a teacher, or the Son of God. But if any one desires to learn also the fabrications of those sorcerers, by which they wished to entice men to their own teaching as if possessing some secret things, though they were not very successful, let him hear what they are taught to say after having passed through what they call the partition of wickedness: "O thou that art bound by the ruler of the age as a solitary King, a bond of blindness, an unthinking oblivion: I greet the first power, preserved by the spirit of Providence and wisdom. From hence I am sent pure, already a part of the light of the Son and the Father. Let grace be with me, yes, Father, let it be with me." And they say that the princes of the Ogdoad B take their origin from this. Then next they are taught to say, when passing through him whom they call Ialdabaoth: "Thou, having been born first and seventh, to rule with confidence, O ruler, being the word of pure intelligence, a perfect work for the Son and the Father, bearing the symbol of the type of life, having opened the gate to thy world which thou didst close in the age, I pass on again, free from thy power. Let grace be with me, yes, Father, let it be with me." And they say that the star Phaenon sympathizes with the lion-formed ruler. Then they think that one who has passed through those who are alien to salvation, and are in no way inscribed—[I am] Raphael—O ruler, bear-formed—Thauthabaoth—[O]niel—from the tartarus—Tartharaoth. C And they think that the one who has passed through the powers that are alien to salvation—and are in no way inscribed as of the Christians, but are rather powers of the sorcerers who are far from the doctrine of Jesus, which we confess truly even to death—has seen them. It is necessary, however, to know that these were neither composed by us, nor have they discerned the things of the divine Scriptures, but turned everything upside down. From magic D [they derived] Ialdabaoth and Astaphaios and Horaies; and from the Hebrew Scriptures they interpreted Iao. [alt-version omitted]
A Ialdabaoth — and reaching to Iao 50 of those previously mentioned, they glorify Ialdabaoth, saying that he is, as I have said, the first son of Barbelo. And for this reason, they say, one must render honor to him, because he revealed many things. Hence they also fabricate certain books in the name of Ialdabaoth, painting [an image] and [providing] myriad barbarian names of archons and powers, they say, in each heaven, who are opposed to the soul of man. And they command [one] to say at the beard, as a symbol: "O ruler of the hidden mysteries of the Son and Father, night-shining, second Iao, and first lord of death, part of the innocent, offering already my own beard as a symbol under [my] mind, I am ready to pass through your authority; you have overcome [52] him who was born of you by the living Word. Let grace be with me, Father, let it be with me." Then, next, [they address] Sabaoth 55, to whom they imagine they will say: "Ruler of the fifth power, dynast Sabaoth, leader of the law of your own creation, which is being loosened by grace, O power stronger than the pentad, let me pass, seeing the symbol of the craft, [which is] blameless, kept by the image of the seal 34, the body loosened by the pentad. Let grace be with me, Father, let it be with me." They say that Sabaoth has the form of a donkey, and others say of a pig. Wherefore, they say, he commanded the Jews not to eat either of these. They also say that the wretches—thinking that the name Sabaoth is the name of some archon—also say that he has hair like a woman’s. B
On the Jaldabaoth and Iao invocation formula
Now as one proceeds from Jaldabaoth to Iao, they think one must offer this prayer: "You, who preside over the occult mysteries of the Son and Father, who are visible in the night, second Iao, first lord of death, part of the innocent, offering [my] own beard as a symbol, I am ready to pass through your domain; you have confirmed him who was born from you by the virtue of the living Word. Let grace be with me, O Father, let it be with me." Thence one goes to Sabaoth, whom they say is to be addressed thus: "O prince of the fifth domain, Lord Sabaoth, first herald of the law imposed upon the things created by you, which grace has liberated, by the power of the number five, admit me, seeing the symbol of your art C... [alt-version omitted] ... Others also use Hebrew names so that they might inspire stupor or terrify those who are being initiated, thus: *Basyma cacabasa eanaa irraumista dyarbada, cucola bafobor camelanthi.* The interpretation of these is as follows: "That which is above every power I invoke, which is called light and spirit and life; for you have reigned in the body." Still others again proclaim the redemption thus: "The name which is hidden from all deity and domination and truth, which Jesus of Nazareth put on in the zones of light, Christ the Lord who lives through the Holy Spirit unto angelic redemption; the name which is of restoration, *messia ufar magno in scenchaldia mosomeda earcha faronepseha*, Jesus of Nazareth." And the interpretation of these is as follows: "I do not divide the spirit of Christ, [my] heart, and [my] super-celestial power, O merciful one, may I enjoy your name, Savior of truth." D And these things, indeed, are proclaimed by those who initiate; but the one who is being initiated answers: "I have been confirmed, and I have been redeemed, and I redeem my soul from this Aeon, and from all that is from it, in the name of Iao, who redeemed his soul unto redemption in the living Christ." Thereafter, they superadd, saying: "Peace to all, upon whom this name rests."
A Let there next be to him the one for Astaphaios, to whom they believe such things are to be said: "Prince of the third gate, Astaphaios, overseer of the first principle of water, seeing me as one initiated, and purified by the spirit of the virgin, admit me, thou who beholdest the essence of the world. Let grace be with me, Father, let it be with me." After him, Ailoein, to whom they think such things should be said: "Prince of the second gate, Ailoein, admit me, as I bring to thee the symbol of thy mother, namely, the grace hidden by the virtue of the powers. Let grace be with me, Father, let it be with me." Finally, they name Horaeos, and think that they should say to him: "Thou who, having fearlessly crossed the barrier of fire, hast obtained the dominion of the first gate, Horaeos, admit me, as I behold the symbol of thy power, destroyed by the seal of the tree of life, and taken in the image of the likeness of the innocent one. Let grace be with me, Father, let it be with me." B
To these things, the supposed learning of Celsus—which is rather an idle curiosity and chatter—has stirred us, wishing to demonstrate to anyone encountering his writing, and those which we have written in response to it, that we are not at a loss concerning the teachings of Celsus, in which he falsely accuses Christians of neither thinking nor knowing such things. Even if we had wished to know and to set forth these things, it was in order that the sorcerers, by their profession of knowing something more than we, might not deceive those who are carried away by the phantasy of names. I could have brought forward and presented other more numerous instances, so that I might show that we know the ways of the deceivers, but that we reject them as alien, impious, and not coexisting with the words of Christians which are truly confessed by us even unto death. One must know, however, that those who compiled these things, having understood neither the arts of magic nor having discerned the things of the divine Scriptures, have jumbled everything together: from magic C Jaldabaoth, and Astaphaios, and Horaeos; but from the Hebrew Scriptures, the one named among the Hebrews Iao, or Ia, or Iao, "I am who I am." This is said among the Hebrews as Aia, but among the Samaritans as Iabe. And it is written with these letters: Ioth, Alpha, Ouauth, E, through which is signified the unbegun and endless [nature] of God. Ioth, Alpha, Ouauth, E. D
A And the [other] names taken from the Scriptures are epithets of the same and one God; which because the enemies of God—as they themselves also confess—do not understand, they have thought that Iao is one, and Sabaoth another, and that an Adonaus, whom the Scriptures call Adonai, is a third distinct from these; and [they think] the Eloaeus to be another, whom the prophets call Eloi in Hebrew. Next, Celsus sets out other myths, as if some were returning into the powers of the rulers, so that some were called B lions, others bulls, others dragons, or eagles, or bears, or dogs. We found in that same diagram the figure which Celsus calls quadrangular, and that which those miserable people hold concerning the gates of paradise. A flaming sword was depicted there, the diameter of a fiery circle, as if standing guard at the tree of knowledge and of life. Now Celsus either would not or could not set forth the speeches which those who pass through the gates are made to utter by the myths of the impious; but we have done so, that the end of this uninitiated initiation might be made clear to Celsus and to those who encounter the writing, so that they might know it to be alien to the piety of Christians regarding the divine. Iao, Ieuo, Eloai. To breathe, to be born. And [they say] that the ruler who possesses this world is of dragon-like form, and that he swallows the souls that do not possess knowledge, and through his tail sends them back again into the world, and from there into swine C and into other animals, and again they are carried back up through the same. After setting forth the aforementioned [doctrines], and those things analogous to them which we have added, Celsus says such things: "But they further add other things upon other things: words of prophets, and circles upon circles, and emanations of the earthly Church, and of circumcision, and a power flowing from a certain Prunicus virgin, and a living soul, and a heaven slain that it might live, and an earth slain with a sword, and many slain that they might live, and a ceasing of death in the world when the sin D of the world shall die, and [again] a narrow descent, and gates opening of their own accord. And everywhere there [appears] the tree of life, and the resurrection of the flesh through the tree; because—I suppose—their teacher was nailed to a cross and was a carpenter by trade. For if it chanced that he had been thrown from a precipice, or cast into a pit, or strangled by a rope, or had been a leather-worker, or a stone-cutter, or a blacksmith, there would have been a precipice of life above the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a rope of immortality, or a holy leather, or a blessed stone, or an iron of charity. Or what old woman [would be said] to be without beginning and end?
murmur such things?» In these words, it seems to me that Celsus is muddling things he has heard incorrectly. It is likely that if he heard a few phrases of any heresy whatsoever, not having grasped its meaning or even its intent, he gathered the snippets together and displayed them to those who know nothing of either our doctrines or those of the heretics, as if he knew everything that Christians believe. This is made clear by the passage before us. For our using the words of the prophets is characteristic of us, as we demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ proclaimed by them and prove from the prophetic writings the things in the Gospels that have been fulfilled concerning Jesus. A But to speak of circles within circles, this perhaps derives from the aforementioned heresy, which includes within one circle—the one they claim is the soul of all things, or Leviathan—the seven circles of the archontic powers. Or perhaps it is a misinterpretation of the Preacher, who says, "The spirit goes in circles, and the spirit returns upon its own circles." That which he says about the emanations of the earthly Church and circumcision was perhaps taken from the claim made by some that the Church on earth is an emanation of a heavenly and superior Aeon, and that the circumcision recorded in the Law is a symbol of a certain circumcision that took place there during some purification. B The followers of Valentinus name a certain "Prunicus" wisdom, in accordance with their own wayward wisdom; they intend this to be the symbol of the woman who suffered from an issue of blood for twelve years. Celsus, having heard this incorrectly—confounding together everything from the Greeks, the barbarians, and the heretics—spoke of "a power of a certain Prunicus flowing from a virgin." A living soul is perhaps mentioned in the secrets of some of the followers of Valentinus concerning the one they name the psychic creator; or perhaps it has been said—not absurdly—by some, simply as a distinction of the living soul from the dead soul of the one who is saved. But as for "slaughtered heaven," or "earth slaughtered with a sword," or "many slaughtered that they might live," I do not know what he means, and it is not unlikely that Celsus invented these things himself.
§ 38. And that energetic man was not satisfied with having railed against the diagram; he desired to heap up more accusations against us, even though they have nothing in common with what he had previously said, by interjecting things from heretics as if they belonged to others. For he says, "And this is not the least surprising among them," and he tells how they explain it: "For between the supercelestial circles are inscribed spheres, which they customarily interpret, and especially these two words, 'greater' and 'lesser,' which they refer one to the Father and the other to the Son." C We have indeed seen in that diagram a larger and a smaller circle, with the diameter inscribed, and "Father" and "Son" written between the larger and the smaller, and where it was smaller, there were others joined together, consisting of two circles—the outer one yellow, and the inner one blue; and the interscribed barrier in the shape of a hatchet. And above its circle, closely connected to the larger of the former ones, was inscribed "Agapa"; below it, adjoining the circle, was written "Zoe." To the second circle it was inscribed, and intertwined and encompassing two other circles, and another shape, rhomboidal, "Sophia's providence"; and within the intersection of these, "Sophia's nature." D And above their common intersection was a circle in which was inscribed "Gnosis," and below it another in which was inscribed, as if one were reading, "Prunicus," and another joined together, which Boherellus proves. [alt-version omitted]
...and when the death of the world has been brought to an end, when the sin of the world has died, we might say, explaining the mystery in the Apostle, in the following way: "When he shall have put all enemies under his feet, then the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed." It is also said, "When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, then shall come to pass the word that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory." Perhaps those who introduce the transmigration of souls might also speak of a narrow descent once again. Nor is it implausible that "gates opening of their own accord" refer to those who hint at and explain the text: "Open to me the gates of justice, that I may enter into them and confess to the Lord; this is the gate of the Lord, the just shall enter into it." And again, it is said in the ninth psalm: "Thou who liftest me up from the gates of death, that I may show forth all thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Sion." The Word says that the gates of death are the sins that lead to perdition; just as, conversely, the gates of Sion are the good works. Thus, the gates of justice are equivalent to the gates of virtue; these open readily to one who pursues works of virtue.
As for the tree of life, one might more opportunely explain it while interpreting the section in Genesis concerning the paradise of God which was planted by Him. Celsus has mocked many times the resurrection which he did not understand; now, not content with what he has said, he claims that "resurrection of the flesh by means of a tree" is preached by us, having misunderstood, I think, what was said symbolically: "Through a tree, death; and through a tree, life—death through Adam, and life through Christ." Then, playing with the matter of the tree, he mocks it from two points of view, saying that it is invoked for this reason, either because our teacher was nailed to a cross, or because he was a carpenter by trade; he does not see that the tree of life is recorded in the writings of Moses, nor does he see that nowhere in the Gospels current among the Churches is Jesus himself recorded as a carpenter. B And he thinks that we, by interpreting allegorically, have fabricated the tree of life, and consistently with his error regarding this, he says:
A If indeed he had been cast down from a cliff, or plunged into a chasm, or strangled by a noose, they would have undoubtedly fashioned above the heavens a cliff of life, or a chasm of resurrection, or a rope of immortality. B And again he says: If the tree of life was fabricated because he was a worker in wood, it would follow that if he had been a leather-worker, they would have imposed upon us some holy leather; if a stonemason, a blessed stone; if a blacksmith, an iron of charity. But who does not see the worthlessness of the accusation of this man, who insults those whom he promised to convert as if they were deceived? Next to these things he adds what is appropriate to the fabrications (57) of those who mythologize about lion-like and ass-headed and dragon-like rulers, and whatever else resembles their mythological fabrications; but these things do not at all belong to those from the Church. For in truth, not even a drunken old woman would be ashamed to croon or whisper to a child to lull him to sleep such myths as those who have fashioned ass-headed beings and the quasi-orations at each gate. The things of the Church, however, Celsus does not understand, things which very few have been able (58) to comprehend—those who have dedicated their whole life, according to the command of Jesus, to searching the Scriptures, and who have labored more on examining the will of the holy writings than the Greeks who philosophized on the acquisition of some supposed knowledge.
Not content with the things from the diagram, this noble man, in order to increase the accusations against us, wished to insert some things that have nothing in common with it, taking up those of others (59) as if they were ours. For he says: C And this is not the least thing to be wondered at in them; for they interpret certain things inscribed between the supercelestial circles above, and among others, two things, a greater and a smaller, of Son and Father. D We indeed found in this diagram the larger circle and the smaller; on the diameter of which was inscribed Father and Son. And between the larger, in which the smaller was, and another composed (60) of two circles, the outer one yellow, the inner one blue (61), there was the inscribed division in the shape of an axe. And above it was a small circle touching the greater of the former, having inscribed upon it Charity; and below, touching the circle, it had written upon it Life. And on the second circle, which was intertwined and contained within itself two other circles and another rhomboid shape, was inscribed Sapience’s providence (62); and in the common section of them, Sapience’s nature. And above their common section was a circle in which was inscribed Knowledge; and below, another in which [index: entries preserved]
was inscribed Intelligence. And we have dwelt upon these things, given the opportunity by Celsus, that the readers might recognize A that the things which we ourselves censure are better known to us than to him; and not from useless rumors have we received them. Whether, however, those who take pride in such trifles also profess certain magical arts, or whether this is the sum of their wisdom, I do not assert, since I have never apprehended anything of the kind; let Celsus look to that, who has often already been convicted of falsehoods and absurd calumnies, whether he lies here as well, or whether he has truly discovered in his own work what he set forth concerning certain things alien to our faith. B
Next, he speaks regarding those who use magic and trickery, and invoke the names of certain demons as barbaric, saying that they do something similar to those who, regarding the same things, seem to do marvelous things before those who do not know that there are different names for these things among the Greeks than among the Scythians. He sets forth things borrowed from Herodotus, how that the Scythians call Apollo Gongosyrus, and Poseidon Thagimasadas, and Venus Argimpaea, and Vesta Tabiti. The one who is able to examine this will inquire whether Celsus also lies here along with Herodotus; for the Scythians do not know whether those things which they deem to be gods are the same as those among the Greeks. For what probability is there that Apollo should be called Gongosyrus among the Scythians? For I do not think that, if Gongosyrus were turned into the Greek tongue, it could demonstrate the etymology of Apollo, or that Apollo signifies the same as Gongosyrus in the Scythian language. And I do not yet speak of the others; for the Greeks derived the names of the gods they suppose to exist among themselves from one cause and origin, and the Scythians C from another; so too do the Persians from one source, and the Indians, or Ethiopians, or Libyans from another; or as it pleases each to name them, having departed from the primary and pure notion of the Creator of all things. But enough has already been said by us on this head in what preceded, when we wished to demonstrate that Sabaoth is not the same as Zeus; when we also set forth some observations concerning the diversity of languages from the divine Scriptures. I gladly pass over these matters, then, in which I could not follow Celsus without repeating what has already been said.
Then, he again chants to us of magical tricks, and perhaps attributes them to no one, since there is no one who exercises such an art in the religion he attacks; or perhaps he refers to those with whom it is customary to use this artifice before the simple, so that they might appear to accomplish something by divine power. D These, in truth, are his words: “What need is there for me to recount all those who use either expiations, or incantations and voices for casting out and averting misfortunes...”
A or images, or demonic configurations—whether these be made of objects perceived by the senses, or of numbers, or of stones, or of plants, or of roots, and in general of every kind of material—to provide all sorts of antidotes?” Concerning these matters, reason does not require us to make a defense, since we are not in the least measure implicated in such suspicions. After this, he appears to me to be acting like those who, because of their intense hatred for Christians, insist to those who know nothing of the customs of Christians that they have caught them eating the flesh of infants and engaging in promiscuous intercourse with the women in their company. Just as such statements, having been made already by many who are utterly foreign to our religion, are rightly judged to be calumnies against Christians, so too would it be found that these charges by Celsus are nothing but lies, in which he claimed that “he had seen among certain elders of our faith barbaric books containing the names of demons and various incantations,” and he alleged that “these supposedly ‘elders’ of our faith promised nothing good, but everything for the injury of men.” And would that all the things said by Celsus against Christians were of this kind! For then, most people would have refuted them by having experienced for themselves that such things are false, since they have lived their lives alongside Christians and have never even heard anything of the sort about them. After this, as if forgetting that his purpose was to write against Christians, he says: “A certain Dionysius, an Egyptian musician who associated with me, said concerning the art of magic that it has power over the uneducated and those with corrupt morals, but that it is able to accomplish nothing against those who occupy themselves with philosophy, B since they have looked after their wholesome way of life.” If it were our purpose now to discuss magic, we could have added a few things to what we have said above about it; but since it is necessary to speak more pointedly toward the treatise of Celsus, concerning magic we say this: that anyone who wishes to examine whether or not philosophers are susceptible to it should read what was written by Moeragenes in his memoirs of Apollonius of Tyana, the magician and philosopher. In these, the author—who was not a Christian, but a philosopher—said that certain philosophers of no low rank were captured by the magic practiced by Apollonius, having approached him as a sorcerer. For we must not place our trust in Moeragenes, who composed four books about Apollonius but was ignorant of many things concerning the man. And let us pass over the matters concerning Musonius, which are more numerous and more wondrous, so that I may not appear to be acting recklessly toward one who related them carelessly. “And [concerning those he says] were captivated by him, I think he even narrated [some things] about the Euphrates (73) and about a certain Epicurean. But [I] will [refute this]...
A We, however, maintain, having also learned by experience, that those who, according to the Christian faith, worship through Jesus the God who is over all, and who live according to His Gospel, and who use the appointed prayers more frequently and properly both by night and by day, are not subject to the power of magic or demons. For in truth, “The angel of the Lord shall encamp around those who fear Him, and shall deliver them from every evil.” And the angels (74) of the little ones in the Church, who are appointed to preside over them, are said at all times to behold the face of the Father who is in the heavens; whatever that face may be, and whatever that beholding may be.
[Regarding the mention] of Euphrates the philosopher, [Celsus] says, “Not I,” said God, “but He who defines equality by mediocrity.” B And these men [Celsus says], were good counselors regarding these things—pointing to Dion and Euphrates—who had not yet come into disagreement with him [Apollonius], [who were] captured by the magic practiced by Apollonius, [those] noble philosophers. Following these things, Celsus sets forth such [arguments] against us from another starting point: “They err most impiously, and are also led astray about this (75) greatest injustice, similarly having been misled by divine enigmas, [by] making for God a certain adversary (76), calling him Diabolos and in the Hebrew tongue, Satanas. C Otherwise, indeed, these things are altogether mortal (77), and it is not even holy to say that the greatest God, wishing to benefit men, has one who acts against [Him], and is unable [to overcome him]. Then the Son of God is defeated by the devil; and, being punished by him, He teaches us also to despise the punishments [inflicted] by him (78), predicting that Satan himself, appearing in like manner, will display great and marvelous deeds, usurping the glory of God; to which one ought not to pay attention, if one wishes to turn away from him, but [one ought] to believe in Him alone. D These things are frankly [the words] of a sorcerer, acting for hire and guarding against those who think differently and rise up (79) in opposition.”
Then following these things, wishing [to interpret] the enigmas, of which he thinks we have heard mistakenly, to introduce [the idea of] Satan, he says that “the ancients hinted at a certain divine war; Heraclitus (80) indeed saying thus, ‘But if one must say that war is common, and justice is strife, and all things are generated according to strife and necessity.’ And Pherecydes (81) [saying]...
A narrating a story of a war between two armies, gives Cronus as leader of one, and Ophioneus of the other, recounting also their challenges and contests; and that there were pacts made between them, so that whichever of them fell into the ocean, those would be the vanquished, and those who had thrust them out and conquered would possess the heaven. He says that the mysteries concerning the Titans and Giants belong to this design, as they are declared to be warring against the gods; as are also the things among the Egyptians concerning Typhon, and Horus, and Osiris.» Then, having set forth such things, and not having explained how, on the one hand, those things contain a deeper meaning, while these are misinterpretations of those, he inveighs against us, saying, B «Those are not like the accounts of the devilish demon, or, what they say is truer, of a sorcerer who contradicts [the truth].» In this way he also interprets Homer, as if he were hinting in those words of Hephaestus to Hera at things similar to Heraclitus, and Pherecydes, and those who introduce the mysteries concerning the Titans and Giants saying: «For already once before, when I was eager to defend you / He threw me by the foot, having grasped it, from the divine threshold.» And to those of Zeus to Hera thus: «Dost thou not remember C when thou didst hang from on high, and from thy feet I cast down two anvils, and around thy hands I put a golden chain, unbreakable; and thou didst hang in the ether and clouds; and the gods were indignant throughout high Olympus.»
And we could find ten thousand things stated enigmatically both by philosophers and by poets; where even whole books demonstrate the author’s hidden intention: as is also the book of Heraclitus, *On Nature*, who for this very reason has been called the "Dark." Similar to this book is the *Theology* of Pherecydes the Syrian. And if he is "dark," [it is because] D all the things which Pherecydes theologized through allegory, he took as his thesis from the prophecy of Ham. «Taking the incentives from the Phoenicians, Pherecydes also theologized concerning the god called by him Ophioneus, and the Ophionidae, concerning whom we shall speak again.»
There is no escape into those pastures and meadows, but they wander about, like those demons of Empedocles who are god-driven and heaven-fallen: «For the force of the sky drives them into the sea; And the sea spews them upon the floor of the earth; And the earth [sends them] to the rays of the unwearied sun, And he casts them into the eddies of the ether.»
A And explaining the Homeric verses, he says that the words of Zeus to Hera are words of God to matter; and that these words to matter intimate that God, having taken hold of matter which from the beginning was in a disorderly state, bound it and adorned it with certain harmonies; and that as many of the demons regarding it as were arrogant, these He cast out, punishing them by the path downward. And he says that Pherecydes, having understood these Homeric verses in such a way, spoke the following: «Below this part of the earth is the region of Tartarus, which Harpyia and Thyella, daughters of Boreas, guard, where Zeus casts out those of the gods, whenever any one commits acts of insolence.» And he says that the veil B of Athena, which is seen by all in the procession of the Panathenaia, holds such meanings. «For it is indicated by it,» he says, «that some motherless and unpolluted demon overcomes those earth-born ones who act boldly.» And having accepted the fictions of the Greeks, he adds, accusing our teachings, that «the Son of God is punished by the devil, and [Christ] teaches us to endure as if we were being punished by the same. And these things are entirely ridiculous. For it were necessary, I think, to punish the devil, instead of threatening the men who have been slandered by him.» See, then, if he who accuses us of wandering most impiously and being led astray from divine enigmas is not himself clearly wandering, C not having understood that the writings of Moses—which are older not only than those of Heraclitus and Pherecydes, but even than those of Homer—introduced the doctrine concerning this wicked one who fell from the heavenly realms. For the serpent—from whom also the Ophioneus in Pherecydes has come to be the cause of the man being cast out of the divine paradise—intimidates such things, having deceived the female genus with a promise of divinity and greater things, to which it is said the man also followed. And who else could the destroyer in the Exodus of Moses be than the one who is the cause of destruction to those who obey him, and do not resist his wickedness, and do not contend against him? And furthermore, the scapegoat in Leviticus, D which the Hebrew scripture called Azazel, could be none other—which it behooves one to send away and to avert from the lot that is in the desert. For all those of the portion of the worse, because of their wickedness, are opposed [to the lot of God], and are desert, being deprived of certain ones who have moulted their feathers...
A and are far removed from God. But what of the sons of Belial in the Book of Judges? Of whose sons are they said to be, on account of their wickedness, if not of that same evil one? Furthermore, in the Book of Job, which is more ancient even than Moses, the devil is described as standing before God and requesting the power to subject Job to the heaviest of trials: first, by the loss of all his possessions and his children; and second, by afflicting Job’s whole body with that savage `elephantiasis’, as the disease is called. I pass over what the Gospels say regarding the devil who tempted the Savior, lest I seem to be using the authority of later writings in the matter being discussed against Celsus. And in the final chapters of the Book of Job, in which the Lord speaks to Job from the whirlwind and the clouds, there is not a little said about the dragon. I do not mention what Ezekiel says, as if speaking of Pharaoh, or Nabuchodonosor, or the prince of Tyre; nor do I cite the lamentation of Isaiah over the king of Babylon B; from all of these, one may learn from where evil took its beginning and origin, and that evil came into existence after the one who first moulted his wings. For it was not possible for that which is good by accident and by subsequent addition to be the same as that which is essentially good; which [good], for the one who—if I may use the expression—receives the living bread for the preservation of himself, would never fall away. But if it does fall away from anyone, it falls away because of that person’s own cause, for having been negligent in partaking of the living bread and the true drink—from which one is nourished and watered, and the wing is prepared; and, according to the wisest Solomon speaking of the man who is truly rich, “He has prepared wings for himself like an eagle,” and he returns to the house of him who is set over him. For since God knows how to use for a good purpose even those who have revolted through wickedness, it was necessary for these evil ones to be placed somewhere in the universe, and for them to be turned into a training ground for those who desire to strive lawfully C for the sake of acquiring virtue; so that, being tested like gold in the fire by the wickedness of these beings, and having done everything to ensure that they put forward nothing counterfeit in their own rational nature, they might appear worthy of the ascent to divine things, and be drawn up by the Word to the highest blessedness of all, and, if I may so call it, the summit of all good things. Now, Satan in the Hebrew tongue, and in Greek—more strictly—is called by some Satanas; it signifies “the adversary.” Whoever chooses wickedness and lives by it, since he acts contrary to virtue, is a Satan D, that is to say, an adversary.
A More properly, however, the adversary is he who, being the first among those who were in peace and living blessedly, shed his wings and fell from his happiness; who, according to Ezekiel, ‹walked blameless in all his ways until iniquity was found in him›; and who, being ‹a seal of likeness, and a crown of beauty in the paradise of God,› having been, as it were, sated with good things, became ‹a destruction› according to the word mystically spoken to him: ‹Thou hast become a destruction, and thou shalt not be for ever.› These few things we have ventured, perhaps not very successfully, to commit to this work, trusting in the Scriptures. But if anyone, devoting his leisure to the examination of the sacred writings, should endeavor to synthesize from every source the doctrine concerning evil, and how it first came to be, and in what manner it is being resolved, he would see that neither Celsus nor any of those who are dragged and hauled away by this evil demon from God and from the right understanding of Him and of His Word, ever even dreamed of the intention of Moses and the prophets concerning Satan.
Since Celsus also makes mention of the one called Antichrist, though he has read neither the things said about him in Daniel, nor the things in Paul, nor the things prophesied in the Gospels by the Savior concerning his coming, it is fitting to say a few things about him also. Just as faces are not similar to faces, so too are hearts not similar to hearts. It is evident, therefore, that there are differences in human hearts, those who have turned toward the good not all being shaped and formed in the same or similar way toward it, and likewise those who, through negligence of the good, have rushed toward the opposite. For among these, in some wickedness is poured out B vehemently, while in others it is so to a lesser degree. What, then, is absurd about there being two, if I may call them so, “extremities,” one of good and one of its opposite, occurring in men, such that the extremity of good is found in the man to be understood according to Jesus—from whom such a great turning, healing, and improvement has flowed to the human race—and the extremity of the opposite is in him who is called Antichrist? God, who encompasses all things with His own foreknowledge and has seen these things concerning both, wished to make them known to men through the prophets, so that those who understand their words might attach themselves to the better [extremity] and guard themselves against the opposite. And it was necessary that the one of the two ends, being the best, should be proclaimed the Son of God on account of His excellence, while the other, being diametrically opposed to Him, should be called the son of the evil demon, of Satan, and of the devil.
Further, since evil is known to be accumulated and to have reached its peak when it assumes the appearance of good, for this reason that evil one, with the cooperation of his father the devil, produces signs, wonders, and lying powers. For beyond the assistance that demons, while deceiving men, provide to sorcerers for the most wicked deeds, there occurs a cooperation from the devil himself to deceive the human race. A Paul also speaks concerning this person called the Antichrist, teaching and setting forth, though with some obscurity, how and when he shall come to the human race, and for what cause. And see whether what he says is not most serious and worthy of not even the slightest derision.
He speaks as follows: «We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him, that ye be not B soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.»
To explain each of these things does not suit the present treatise. There is also, concerning him, a prophecy in Daniel, which is such that it can lead the prudent and candid reader to wonder, so truly does it savor of divine and prophetic inspiration. There, those things which pertain to future kingdoms are foretold, from the times of Daniel even to the destruction of the world. Whoever wishes may read it. But as for the things concerning the Antichrist, see whether they are not of such a kind: «And at the end of their kingdom, when their iniquities have reached their fullness, a king of a brazen face shall arise, who understands riddles, and his power shall be strengthened, and he shall destroy wonders, and shall prosper,
and shall do, and shall destroy the strong and the holy people, and the yoke of his fetters shall prosper. Deceit is in his hand, and in his heart he shall be magnified. And by deceit he shall destroy many, and he shall stand in the destruction of many, and as eggs he shall crush them in his hand. What, moreover, has been said by Paul in the statement which I have quoted, «sojourn in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God,» has been expressed by Daniel in this fashion: «And on the temple, an abomination of the desolations, and even until the completion of the time, shall a completion be given to the desolation.» B And these things I have thought it worthwhile to gather from many others, so that the reader might to some extent understand the intention of the divine Scriptures, which teach those things concerning the devil and the Antichrist. Being content with these things for this matter, let us observe another statement of Celsus and fight against it as far as we are able.
He then said, after the points presented, such things as these: "Suppose, however, it has also occurred to them to call him Son of God, I make note of this. Forsooth, the ancients called this world, as if it had been brought into being by God, the son of God and a youth. There is a great likeness, certainly, between this and that Son of God!" He therefore thought that when we say [Jesus is] the Son of God, we have wrongly borrowed it from those things which were handed down concerning the world, namely, that it was born from God and is his son and is God. For he could not attend to the age of Moses and the prophets, to understand that the Jewish prophets had prophesied concerning a certain Son of God long before the Greeks and those whom he calls the ancients existed. Nor did he even wish to bring forward the testimony which we cited above from Plato’s letters, where he speaks concerning the maker of this universe as being the Son of God; for he feared that he might be forced C by that Plato, whom he often extolled with praise, to admit that the maker of this universe is the Son of God, but that the first and supreme God is his Father.
But that we say the soul of this Jesus is united to such a great Son of God by an intimate participation, and is never to be separated from Him, is not at all strange. For the sacred teachings of the divine Scriptures know of other things, which, although they are two by their own nature, are yet held to be and truly are one. Such is that [teaching] concerning husband and wife: «They are no longer two, but one flesh;» and concerning the perfect man and him who adheres to the true Lord, who is the Word and Wisdom and Truth: «He who adheres to the Lord is one spirit.» If, therefore, he who adheres to the Lord is one spirit, who more—nay, who as much as—the soul of Jesus, adheres to the Lord, who is the Word itself, the Wisdom itself, the Truth itself, and the Justice itself? If however the matter is so constituted, we say [that the soul of the Son is united to Him].
A and that the soul of Jesus and the Word and the Firstborn of all creation are not two. B Consequently, if the Stoic philosophers, while saying that the virtue of man and God is the same, do not say that God who is over all is happier than the wise man among men—according to them—but that the happiness of both is equal, Celsus does not mock, nor does he ridicule the dogma. But if the divine word asserts that the perfect man is agglutinated by virtue and is united to the Word itself—so that those who have ascended to this level do not separate the soul of Jesus from the Firstborn of all creation—he laughs that Jesus is called the Son of God, not seeing what things are spoken mystically about Him in secret within the divine Scriptures. But in order to bring one who wishes to follow the consistency of doctrines and to benefit, to the acceptance of what is said, we say that the divine writings maintain that the whole Church of God is the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God; and that the members of this body, as of a whole, are all those who believe. For just as the soul gives life and movement to the body, which is not of itself naturally moved vitally, so the Word, moving and acting upon the whole body, the Church, toward those things which are necessary, also moves each individual member of those who belong to the Church, so that they do nothing without the Word. If, therefore, this is—as I suppose—not to be despised and hangs together perfectly, what prevents the soul of Jesus, through its supreme and incomparable communion with the Word itself—and, to put it simply, Jesus Himself—from not being separated from the Only-Begotten and Firstborn of all creation, and from not being something other than He? And so much for these matters.
Let us see also what follows, in which, having declared it in a single word, and not even saying anything according to probability, he censures the creation of the world according to Moses, saying: C «Furthermore, the origin of the world is also utterly foolish.» If he had revealed how it seems foolish to him, and had brought forward certain probabilities, we would have fought against them. However, it does not seem reasonable to me to construct a defense against his assertion, when he has provided no reason for it.
D 52. Thereafter Celsus says: «But I, regarding the generation and destruction of the world, whether it is unbegotten and incorruptible, or whether it is begotten and incorruptible, or the reverse, say nothing at all about this.» Therefore, neither do we address [this matter]; for the nature of our undertaking does not require us to do so.
A In what way is this not foolish? If any one desires to contemplate the arguments that have moved us, established along with the visible demonstration concerning the creation of the world according to Moses, let him take what we have discussed on Genesis, from the beginning of the book up to: "This is the book of the generation of men." In these writings, we have endeavored to demonstrate from the divine scriptures themselves what the heaven created in the beginning was, and the earth, and the invisible and unformed state of the earth, and what the abyss was, and the darkness upon it, and what the water was and the Spirit of God moving upon it, and what the created light was, and what the firmament was, distinct from the heaven created in the beginning, and so forth.
He declared that the scripture concerning the creation of men is also utterly foolish, neither putting forward the proofs nor struggling against them; for he had no arguments, I believe, that could overturn the fact that man was made in the image of God. Nor did he understand the paradise planted by God, and the life of man in it before the fall, and the life that resulted from the tribulation after he was cast out because of sin, and was settled opposite the paradise of delight. But let the one who says that these things were said in a very foolish manner consider each point, and first this one: "He stationed the cherubim, and the flaming sword that turns, to guard the way to the tree of life." If, then, Moses wrote these things without understanding anything, but doing something similar to the things the poets of the ancient comedy wrote in jest—[that] Proetus slew Bellerophon, or that the Pegasus was from Arcadia—but those men used to compose such things wishing to provoke laughter; it is not, however, credible that he who left scriptures for a whole nation, which he wished to persuade the law-receivers were from God, would have committed to writing absurdities, and have said B without any sense, "He stationed the cherubim, and the flaming sword that turns, to guard the way to the tree of life," or any other of the things spoken concerning the creation of men, which the wise men among the Hebrews have philosophized about. C
Following these things, having compiled in naked assertions the differences of the opinions of some of the ancients concerning the creation of the world and of men, he says: "Those who left our writings, Moses and the prophets, not knowing what the nature of the world and of men is, composed deep nonsense." If, then, he had stated the manner which seems to him to make the divine scriptures "deep nonsense," we would have attempted to dismantle the plausibilities that appeared to him concerning their being deep nonsense. But now, acting in the same way as him, and mocking, we too will declare that Celsus, in no way knowing what the nature of the mind and of the discourse in the prophets is, has composed "deep nonsense," arrogantly entitling it "The True Discourse." Since, however, he brings forward, as clear and accurately understood by himself... D
an accusation regarding the days of the creation of the world—some of which he claims passed before there was light, or heaven, or sun, moon, and stars, and others of which followed their creation—we shall note this one point against him: that it surely escaped Moses's notice to have said previously, "In six days the world was finished in its creation," and that, forgetting himself, he added to these words, "This is the book of the generation of men, in the day that God made heaven and earth." But it is in no way plausible that Moses, having spoken about the six days, added without reason, "in the day that God made heaven and earth." If anyone thinks these words can be referred back to the passage, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," let him consider that before the words, "Let there be light, and there was light," and before the words, "And God called the light day," it was said, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." B Now, to discourse about intelligible and sensible things, and in what manner the natures of the days have been distributed into both kinds, is not our present purpose, nor is it to examine the things concerning their places; for we would need entire treatises to narrate the creation of the world according to Moses, a task which we have performed, to the best of our ability, long before the present work against Celsus, having discussed the six days of the creation of the world according to Moses from the habit of study we possessed at that time, many years ago. One must know, however, that the Word promises through Isaiah to the righteous C that there will be a state of days in which "there shall be no sun, but the Lord himself will be an everlasting light to them, and God will be their glory." Celsus, I suppose, having misheard some wicked heresy that interprets the words "Let there be light" badly, as if they were spoken prayerfully by the Creator, said: "For the Creator did not, like those who light their lamps from their neighbors, borrow light from above." And having misheard another impious heresy, he also said, "If there were some cursed god, an adversary to the great God, doing these things against His will, why did he lend him the light?" We are so far from defending these views that we rather wish to condemn their doctrine as erroneous, and we address ourselves not to things we do not know about them, as Celsus does, but to what we accurately know, having followed their reasoning at times, and at other times having carefully read their writings. After this, Celsus says: "I say nothing now concerning the generation and destruction of the world, whether it is unbegotten and incorruptible, or created but incorruptible, or the reverse." Wherefore, neither do we say anything about these matters now; for the D current treatise does not require it.
Nor do we say that the Spirit of the God over all was [present] as in things foreign to Him, according to the passage, "And the Spirit of God was moving over the water," nor do we say that any things are craftily devised against His Spirit by another creator besides the great God, which the higher God A permitted to be in need of destruction. Therefore, let those who say these things be gone, as well as Celsus, who does not truthfully refute them; for he ought either not to have mentioned such matters or, according to the kindness he imagines for himself, to have carefully set them forth and contended against the things impiously spoken by them. Nor have we ever heard that the great God, having given the Spirit to the creator, demands it back again. Then, engaging in foolishly impious B speech, he objects: "What god gives something as if he were about to demand it back? For it is the part of one who is in need to demand, but God is in need of nothing." And to these things he adds, as if saying something quite wise against some: "Why, when he lent, was he ignorant that he was lending to an evil [creator]?" He also says this: "Why does he look on C whilst an evil creator acts in opposition to him?" Then, I think, confusing heresies with heresies, and not noting that some things belong to one heresy and others to another, he brings forward the objections we raise against Marcion. Perhaps, also, having misunderstood these from some vulgar and unlearned arguments, he voices his rebuke—a rebuke which does not demonstrate much wisdom. For setting forth the things said against Marcion—and not noting D that he is speaking against him—he says: "Why does he send [someone] secretly, and destroy the works of this one? Why does he break in by stealth, and persuade, and deceive? Why does he win over the souls of those condemned or cursed by him, as you say, and steal them away like a kidnapper? Why does he teach them to flee from the Lord? Why to flee the Father? Why does he himself adopt them without the Father's consent? Why does he announce himself to be the Father of those who belong to another?" And he adds to them, as if in astonishment: "A noble god indeed, who desires to be the father of sinners, of the wretched, and—as they themselves say—of the offal condemned by another! And who cannot punish the one he sent, who has rebelled against him!" Thereafter, as if acting against us who confess that this world is not [the work] of some alien and stranger God, he says such things: "If these are his works, how did God create evils? How is he unable to persuade and admonish? And why does he repent when they have become ungrateful and wicked? Why does he complain of his own skill, and hate, and threaten, and destroy his own offspring? Or where does he lead them away from this world, which he himself made?" And it seems to me that even in these things he is rebuking the rebukers with an argument, not, however, one that is very wise.
A It is not, therefore, absurd for God to be said to introduce such things for the sake of turning and healing those who have need of such pains, nor would it be absurd for the Word to say that "evil comes down from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem," B both because that which is posited in the troubles which enemies were bringing is for the purpose of conversion, and because it is said, "to be visited in the rod of iniquities and in stripes for their sins," and because it is said, "You have coals of fire, sit upon them, they will be an aid to you." C We explain this in the same way: "I am the one who makes peace and creates evil," for he creates the bodily and exterior evils, and purges and instructs those who do not wish to be instructed by the Word and sound doctrine. And these things are in answer to, "How could God perform evils?"
B 57. Now to the point: "How is he unable to persuade and exhort?" I have already said what Celsus objects here, if it is because of this that we can be brought into court by those who admit of Providence. Someone has also replied that God is able to exhort, given that he exhorts through the whole of Scripture, and through those who teach by the grace of God those who listen. Unless perhaps they assign some specific meaning to the word "exhort" (58), and to the attaining of it in the one exhorted, and listening to the one teaching, which is beyond the sense of the term as understood in common usage. And to the point, "How is he unable to persuade;" and how it follows for all who admit of Providence, these things must be said. Since persuading (59) is like those who are said to be convinced, analogous to men being moved, it requires not only the act of the one persuading, but also for the one being persuaded—so-called—to be disposed toward the persuader, or to receive what is said by the persuader. Therefore, it should not be said that God is unable to persuade those who are not persuaded, but rather that they do not receive the persuasive (60) arguments of God. And this, when speaking of men, naming the creators of persuasion, one would not be wrong (61); for it is possible for someone who has perfectly grasped the theories of rhetoric, and properly makes use of them, to not succeed in persuasion, because the choice of the one who ought to be persuaded does not seem to be convinced. For, even if the persuasive (62) arguments come from God, the being persuaded is not from God. Paul clearly teaches this, saying, "And the persuasion is not from him who calls you." (63) It is similar to the saying, "If you are willing, and listen to me, you shall eat the good things of the land."
C ...and since he is even the one who brings about a result for the sake of higher things, a certain other inconvenience has externally followed: namely, that the head was thinly protected and fragile to blows and slight knockings; accordingly, diseases and sicknesses were also produced while health was being fashioned. "Thus, by Hercules," he says, "while virtue is being generated for men by the plan of nature, vices have been born there by contrary affinity." (64)
the world, 678 which Scripture in many places usually calls "the world." But it is especially in the Gospel according to John that one can find this "earthly world" spoken of, as when it is said: "That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into this world."
as naturally good things to be considered, and those contrary to this as evil. A For thus Job says to his wife: "If we have received good from the hand of the Lord, shall we not endure evil?" Since, therefore, it is found in the divine Scriptures that on the one hand it is said from the person of God: "I am the one who makes peace and creates evil," and on the other hand again concerning Him: "Evil has come down from the Lord unto the gates of Jerusalem, [a] noise of chariots and horsemen,"—things which have troubled many readers of the Scripture, as they were unable to perceive the meaning behind the good and evil mentioned therein—it is likely that from this source Cel- B sus raised his objection and said: "How could God be creating evil?" Or perhaps he said this because he had heard someone interpret the stated words regarding that topic in a somewhat unlearned fashion. We, however, say that God did not create, as evils, either vice or the actions that stem from it. For how could the preaching regarding judgment possess any freeness of speech if it teaches that the base are to be punished according to the proportion of their transgressions, but that those who have lived according to virtue, or have performed actions according to virtue, are to be blessed and to obtain rewards C from God, if God has made those things which are truly evil? I know that those who desire to dare to say even these things will take up certain passages of Scripture; they are unable to demonstrate that the Scripture is consistent as it condemns those who sin and approves those who do well, and yet nevertheless mentions those few things which seem to disturb those who read the divine letters without understanding. To expound now on those disturbing words—which are numerous—and their interpretations, which require much construction, did not seem to me to be appropriate for the present composition. Therefore, if one hears "evil" in the sense of things properly called so, God has not made them. But as regards His primary works, D a few things, as they relate to the arrangement of the whole, have followed in their wake, just as from the primary works of a craftsman there follow spiral shavings and saw-dust, and just as for builders there seem to be produced those things lying about the buildings, like refuse falling from the stones and the mortar—the things called evil by misuse. If one speaks of what are called in a debased sense "bodily evils" and "external evils," we will concede that it has at times come about that God has brought some of these things to pass, in order that through them He might convert some. And what absurdity can this doctrine possess? For just as we, if we call "evil" by misuse the pains that are brought upon those being trained by fathers, teachers, and tutors, or upon those by doctors who are cut or cauterized for the sake of recovery, and we say that the father, or the tutors, or the teachers, or the doctors are doing evil to the sons, still, those who strike would not be accused if he had done such evil things.
A Likewise, God is said to bring such things upon persons for the sake of the conversion and healing of those who have need of such pains, and the argument would contain nothing absurd; nor could it be said that "evil comes down from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem," which had its substance in the pains from the enemies, brought upon them for their conversion; nor that he "visits with a rod their iniquities" who have abandoned the law of God, "and with scourges their sins"; nor that it is said, "You possess coals of fire, sit upon them; these shall be a help to you." And in this way we explain also the text, "I am he who makes peace and creates evils," for he creates bodily or external evils, purifying and disciplining those who were not willing to be disciplined by the word and by sound doctrine. And these things are in answer to "How did God make evils?"
But in answer to "How is he unable to persuade and admonish?" it has been said already that, if such a thing is an accusation, the objection of Celsus would apply to all who accept Providence; but one might apologize by saying that God is not unable to admonish; for he admonishes through the whole Scripture, and through those who by the grace of God teach those who hear. Unless, perhaps, some specific meaning is understood in the word "to admonish," namely, that of succeeding in the one being admonished, and that he hears the word of the teacher, which is contrary to the sense of the usage common in language. And in answer to "How is he unable to persuade?" which also might be brought forward against all who accept Providence, these things must be said: Since to be persuaded B is, so to speak, one of those called "reciprocals," analogous to a man being shorn, as he acts in providing himself to the shearer, for this reason it requires not only the act of the one persuading, but also, if I may so name it, the submission to the one persuading, or the reception of the things said by the one persuading. For this reason, if some are not persuaded, it must not be said that this arises because God is not able to persuade, but because they do not receive the persuasive words of God. And anyone speaking of this even in the case of men who are called craftsmen of persuasion would not be wrong; for it is possible that one who has grasped the precepts of rhetoric to an extreme degree, and uses them as is fitting, does everything for the sake of persuading, and yet if he does not attain the volition of the one who ought to be persuaded, he appears not to persuade. And that, even if the saying of persuasive words comes from God, the being persuaded is not from God, Paul clearly teaches, saying, "The persuasion is not from Him who calls you." Such is also the text, "If you are willing and hear me, you shall eat the good things of the earth; C if however you are not willing, and do not hear me, the sword shall devour you." D
A For in order that anyone might desire what the one exhorting says, and by listening to them become worthy of the promises of God, the choice of the hearer is required, along with an assent to what is being said. Wherefore it seems to me to be emphatically stated in Deuteronomy: "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you, except to fear the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to keep his commandments?" Next, one must encounter the objection: "How is it that he repents for those who have become ungrateful and wicked, and complains of his own craft, and hates, and threatens, and destroys his own offspring?" He slanders and falsely interprets in this way what is written in Genesis: "And the Lord God seeing that the iniquities of those on the B earth were multiplied, and that every one is meditating diligently in his heart upon evil things all the days, God remembered that he had made man on the earth; and he thought in his heart, and God said: I will blot out man, whom I have made, from the face of the earth, from man even to cattle, and from creeping things even to the birds of the air; for I remembered that I made them." He brings forward things that are not written, as if they were indicated by what is written; for in these there is no mention of God's repenting, nor is it read that he complains of his own craft or hates it. But if God seems to threaten the things of the flood, and to destroy in it his own offspring, it must be said that, since the soul of men is immortal, that which is thought to be a threat aims at turning the hearers back; but the destruction of men in the flood is a purgation of the earth, as even those of the Greeks who have philosophized not incompetently have said: "When the gods purify the earth." Regarding places where human affections are attributed to God, not a few things have already been said by us above. C And Celsus, suspecting next, and perhaps having seen for himself, that it could be said by those apologizing for those who perished in the flood, says: "But if he does not destroy his own offspring, where in the world does he cast them away from this world which he himself made?" And to this we say that, as for the whole world, consisting of heaven and earth, he does by no means cast away those who suffered the flood; but he delivers them from the life in the flesh, and by loosening their bodies, he releases them at the same time from having to exist on the earth, which it is the custom of the Scriptures in many places to name "the world." But it is possible to find the earthly world called "world" especially in the Gospel according to John; just as when it is said: "That was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world."
And, "In the world you will have tribulation A (49), but have courage, I have overcome the world." If, therefore, one understands by "world" the withdrawal from this current terrestrial place, nothing absurd meets the argument. But if one names as "world" the system of heaven and earth, those who suffered the flood are not altogether led out of the world as thus B (50) named. And yet one might say, having understood the words, "while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen," and the words: "For his invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made C," that one who applies his mind to the invisible things, and to those that are collectively named "not seen," has gone out of the world, with the Word leading him forth from here and transferring him to the supercelestial place for the vision of beautiful things. After the passage examined, as if having a purpose D to fill the book with many words, he says things similar to those examined a little above, in which he said: "It is far more foolish to divide the creation of the world into certain days, before days existed; for with the heaven not yet made, nor the earth yet established, nor the sun yet being carried about in this place (53), how were there days?" For how do these differ from this: "Let us examine further from above, how the first and greatest God would not be absurd, ordering: Let this be, and another this, or that; and on one day crafting so much, and on the second again so much more, and on the third and fourth, and fifth and sixth." We have already refuted by our power (54) this "Ordering: Let this be, and another this, or that," when we set forth: "He spoke, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created," saying that the proximate creator (55) is the Son of God, the Word, and as it were the very craftsman of the world; but the Father of the Word, by commanding his own Word to make the world, is the primary creator. Regarding the fact that light was made on the first day, the firmament on the second, and on the third the waters under the heaven were gathered into their gatherings, and thus the earth brought forth things administered by nature alone, and on the fourth the luminaries and stars, and on the fifth the swimming creatures, and on the sixth the land animals and man, we have spoken according to our ability in those things written in our Commentaries on Genesis; and above, in blaming those who, according to a more superficial interpretation, say that six days of time passed in the creation of the world, we set forth: "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when it was made; in the day that God made the heaven and the earth."
A Then again, not having understood the text: "And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, and rested on the seventh day from all his works which he made, and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it he had rested from all his works which God had begun to do," and thinking that "he rested on the seventh day" is the same as "he took rest on the seventh day," he says: "After this, he has become like an idle and wicked craftsman who has grown weary, and who needs rest." For he does not know what that Sabbath and cessation of God is, which shall succeed the creation of the world as long as it exists; a day on which all those who have completed their own works in the six days and have left undone nothing that was required of them, shall celebrate a feast with God, ascending to contemplation and to the gathering of the just and blessed in it. Then, as if the Scriptures spoke in this way, or we ourselves explained it thus—that having grown weary he rested—he says that "it is not right for the first God to grow weary, nor to work with his hands, nor to command [others]." Celsus therefore says that it is not right for the first God to grow weary; but we would say that not even God the Word grows weary, nor do any who belong to the superior and more divine order; for weariness belongs to those who are in a body. You might inquire, then, whether it belongs to those in any kind of body whatsoever, or to those in a terrestrial one, or one slightly better than this. But no, it is not right for the first God to work with his hands; yet if you understand "to work with one's hands" in the literal sense, it is not even right for the second God, nor for anything else among the divine beings. But let it be conceded that the word "to work with hands" is used figuratively or in a tropological sense, so that we may explain the text: "The firmament declares the works of his hands," and, "His hands have established the heaven"; and if anything has been said similarly to these, where we interpret the hands and members of God allegorically, what is absurd about God working with his hands in this sense? Just as it is not absurd for God to work with his hands, so neither is it for him to command; for the things accomplished by the one commanded are noble and worthy of praise, because it is God who has commanded them. B Again, Celsus perhaps having misheard the text: "For the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things," or perhaps because common people had spoken clumsily concerning the explanation of such things, and not understanding that the names of bodily members are applied to the powers of God, he says: "Neither does he have a mouth, nor is there a voice." For truly, there will not be a voice for God, if voice is [defined as] struck air, or the striking of air, or a species of air, or whatever those skilled in these matters define the voice to be; but the so-called voice of God is of such a kind that it is said to be seen by the people after the way in which the world was founded, as this passage testifies: "All the people saw the voice of God." C D
the word “seen” being taken, to use the customary language of Scripture, spiritually. A But he also says that nothing of the things which we know exists in God. Yet what these things are which we know, he does not specify. For if he speaks of members, we agree with him, understanding that what we know is spoken BODILY and in a more common sense. But if we take the phrase “what we know” generally, we know many things that reside in Him; for there is in Him virtue, and blessedness, and divinity. But if anyone understands the phrase “what we know” in a loftier sense, since all that we know is inferior to God, it will be no absurdity for us to admit that there is in God nothing of the things that we know. For the things that are in Him transcend not only human nature's power of knowledge, but also those natures that excel the human. B If he had read the sayings of the prophets, where David says, “But you are the same,” and Malachi, “I am, and I do not change,” he would have seen that none of us says that there is change in God, either in act or in thought. For, remaining the same, He administers mutable things as is in their nature to be administered, and as His reason directs them to be administered.
Then Celsus, failing to note the difference between “according to the image of God” and “His image”—that the image of God is the “Firstborn of all creation,” the Word Himself, and Truth itself, and Wisdom itself, being the “image of His goodness,” whereas man was made “according to the image of God”; and further, not considering that every man, whose head is Christ, is the image and glory of God; nor observing in what part of man that which is “according to the image of God” is characterized, and that it is in the soul which does not have, or no longer has, “the old man with his deeds,” being for that reason described as being according to the image of the Creator—says, “He did not make man to be His image; for God is not like this, nor is He like any other species.” C Of what kind is this notion of Celsus, to think that in man, who is composed of two parts, the worse part—I mean the body—is that which is made according to the image of God, according to the interpretation of Celsus, or that it is His image? For if that which is “according to the image of God” is in the body only, then the soul, the more excellent part, has been deprived of that which is according to the image, and it resides in the corruptible body—an assertion which none of us makes. But if that which is “according to the image of God” is in the combination of both, then God must of necessity be composite, and as it were standing together Himself of soul and body, so that the more excellent part, that which is according to the image, might be in the soul, and the lesser part, that which is according to the body, might be in the body.
This is something that none of us says. It remains, therefore, that what was made according to the image of God should be understood to be in the "inner man," as we call it, A who is "renewed," and is capable of becoming "according to the image of the Creator." This happens when someone becomes perfect, as the heavenly Father is perfect, and obeys the precept: "You shall be holy, for I am holy, the Lord your God," and having learned the command, "Be imitators of God," he receives into his own virtuous soul the characters of God. Indeed, the body B of one who has such a soul—the soul that has received in itself the image of God—is a temple of God, because it has received within the soul the reality of God, according to the image.
Again, Celsus weaves together more things, asserting that they are doctrines of ours, which no one among Christians who has any sense would grant. For none of us says that C God participates in shape or color. Nor does motion pertain to Him, since His nature is stable and steadfast; indeed, He invites even the righteous man to similar things, saying: "But you, stand here with me." If some passages ascribe to Him something like motion, such as the one saying, "They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day," such things must be understood as if God were imagined D to be moving by those who had sinned; or they must be understood in the same way as one speaks allegorically of the sleep of God, or His anger, or anything similar. Furthermore, God is not a participant in substance; for He makes others participants, rather than being a participant Himself; and those who possess the Spirit of God are the participants. Neither does our Savior participate in justice; but being Justice itself, the just are participants of Him.
The discourse concerning substance is long and difficult to discern, especially whether, if there be a substance properly so called—that is, a permanent and bodiless one—it might be found that God, being superior to substance in rank and power, communicates substance to those to whom He communicates it according to his own Word, and by the Word himself; or whether He is Himself substance, although by nature He is called "invisible" in the passage of Scripture concerning the Savior, which says: "Who is the image of the invisible God," by the word "invisible" being signified that He is bodiless. It would be further necessary to inquire whether the Only-Begotten and Firstborn of every creature is to be called the substance of substances, and the idea of ideas, and the beginning; while God, his Father, is superior to all these.
A Celsus, for his part, says of God: "From Him are all things,"—thereby overturning, I know not how, his own principles. Our Paul, however, says: "From Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things," 38, where the phrase "from Him" signifies that it is to Him that all things owe their existence, "through Him" that they are preserved by Him, and "to Him" that He is the end. In truth, God is from no one.
But whereas he says that "He is not even to be grasped by the Word," I must draw a distinction and say: if by "the Word" one means the word within us, whether internal or profered, then we too will say that God is not to be grasped by the Word. But if we consider the passage, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," 39, we declare that by *this* Word God is graspable—and not only by the Word Himself, but also by whomever the Word should reveal the Father. Thus, we prove false the statement of Celsus, who claims: "God is not even graspable by the Word."
And the phrase "not to be named" B also requires distinction. If it is meant that none of the things in language and meaning can represent the properties of God, then what is said is true; for there are many qualities that cannot be named. For who can express in names the difference between the sweetness of a date and the sweetness of a dried fig? Who can use a name to distinguish and represent the individual quality of each thing? It is therefore no wonder if God cannot be named in this way. If, however, you understand "to be named" as whether it is possible, by means of names, to represent something regarding Him in order to lead the hearer and enable him to grasp, according to the capacity of human nature, some things concerning God, then there is nothing absurd in saying that He is nameable. We draw a similar distinction regarding the claim: "For He is not subject to any affection that can be grasped by a name." It is indeed true that God is beyond all affection. And let these things suffice thus far.
B Let us now also look at his next remark, by which he, as it were, introduces someone who, after hearing these things, speaks as follows: "How, then, am I to know God? And how am I to learn the way to Him? And how will You show Him to me? Since You are now casting darkness upon my eyes, and I see nothing clear." Then he, as it were, replies to the one who has thus raised the difficulty, and thinks he is accounting for the cause of the darkness being poured upon the eyes of him who said the aforementioned things, stating: "Those whom one brings out of darkness into brilliant light, their sight is punished by the-splendor, and they are harmed, and they think they are being blinded." C But to these things we shall say that all those who are occupied with the evil works of painters, and potters, and sculptors, and who do not want to lift up their eyes and D [from the darkness towards the light] are sitting and established in darkness...
A and who do not want to lift up their eyes and ascend with their intellect from visible and sensible things to the Creator of all, who is light. But all who follow the rays of the Word are in the light; for He has shown them from what great ignorance and impiety, and from what lack of knowledge concerning the Divine, these things used to be worshipped in place of God. And He has led by the hand the mind of the one who wishes to be saved toward the unbegotten B and supreme God. "For the people of the Gentiles, who were sitting in darkness, saw a great light; and to those sitting in the land and shadow of death, a light has risen," God Jesus. No Christian, therefore, will answer Celsus, or any of those who accuse the divine teaching, by saying, "How shall I know God?" For each one of them has known God as far as is possible. And no one says, "How shall I learn the way thither?" inasmuch as he has heard the One who said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," and has tasted, in the journeying, the benefit derived from that journey. And no one among the Christians would say to Celsus, "How do you show God to me?" But to this, in the preceding, Celsus has said what is true: that someone having heard his words answers, but having seen that C his words are words of darkness, that "You are casting darkness upon my eyes." Celsus, therefore, and those like him, wish to cast darkness upon our eyes; but we, by the light of the Word, dissipate the darkness of impious dogmas. A Christian, indeed, would say to Celsus, who speaks nothing clear or true, "I see nothing clear in your words." Celsus does not, then, lead us from darkness into brilliant light, but wishes to transfer us from light into darkness, positing darkness to be light and light darkness, and being subject to that which was well said by Isaiah in this manner: "Woe to those who call darkness light, and light darkness." But we, the Word having opened the eyes of our soul, seeing the difference between light and darkness, choose to stand in the light by every means, and we wish to have no part with the darkness. The true and ensouled light knows to whom the sparks of radiance should be shown, D and to whom the light itself; for He does not display the brilliance of Himself to everyone, because of the infirmity still inherent in their eyes. But if one must speak of the vision [of the unbegotten] being injured and damaged, of whose eyes shall we say that they suffer these things, other than the one who is held fast by ignorance concerning God, and is hindered by the passions from seeing the truth? Christians, therefore, in no way think that they are blinded by the discourse of Celsus or any other person alien to piety; but those who feel themselves being blinded by following erring crowds and nations that celebrate [*] demons, let them approach the Word that grants eyes, so that, just as those poor and blind sitting by the way, [because they cried out...]
to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me," those who received mercy might receive new and beautiful eyes, such as the Word of God would create]. Therefore, if Celsus should ask us how we think we know God, and how we believe we shall be saved by him, we answer that the Word of God—having come to those who seek Him, or to those who accept Him as He manifests Himself—is sufficient to make known and to reveal the Father, who was not seen before His arrival. And who else is able to save and to lead the human soul to the God over all than God the Word? Who, being A in the beginning with God, for the sake of those who have cleaved to the flesh and have become what is flesh, became flesh, so that He might be grasped by those who were unable to see Him as long as He was the Word, and was with God, and was God. And, speaking in a bodily manner, and being heralded as flesh, He calls to Himself those who are flesh, so that He may first cause them to be conformed to the Word, who became flesh, and after this may raise them up to see Him as He was before He became flesh; so that they, having been benefited and having ascended from the introduction that is according to the flesh, might say: "Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him no longer." He became flesh, therefore, and having become flesh, He dwelt among us, not becoming something outside of us. But having tabernacled and having become in us, He did not remain in His first form, but having led us up onto an elevated spiritual mountain, He showed us the glorious form of Himself and the brilliance of His garments; and not of Himself alone, but also of the spiritual law, which is Moses, who was seen in glory with Jesus. He also showed us that all prophecy did not die after He became man, B but was being taken up into heaven, of which Elijah was the symbol. He who has seen these things would say: "We beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." Celsus has, therefore, foolishly concocted what he thinks we are going to say in response to his question, "How do we think we know God? and how [do we think we shall be saved] by Him?" We, for our part, would say what has been set forth above. Nevertheless, Celsus says that we answer by some conjecture, and he confesses to recording our answer as follows: "Since God is great and difficult to contemplate, He sent down here a spirit of His own, into a body similar to ours, so that we might be able to hear from him and learn." But not only is the God and Father of all great according to us; for He has made the Only-Begotten and First-Born of all creation a partaker of Himself and of His greatness, so that, being Himself an image C of the invisible God, and in His greatness, He might preserve the image of the Father. Not...
A that it were possible to imagine a symmetrical, if I may use the word, and beautiful image of the invisible God, which did not also represent the image of His greatness. But God, according to us, is invisible because He is not a body; yet to those who are capable of contemplation, He is visible to the mind—not, however, to any heart whatsoever, but to the pure heart. For it is not permitted for a contaminated heart to look upon God; but he who would worthily contemplate that which is pure must himself be pure. Let God, then, be difficult to contemplate; yet He is not the only one who is difficult to contemplate; His Only-begotten, God the Word, is also difficult to contemplate, as is the Wisdom in which God made all things. For who is able to contemplate the wisdom in each of all things, in which God made each and every thing? Therefore, it is not because God was difficult to contemplate that He sent the Son, as if the Son were a God easy to contemplate. Celsus, not having understood these things, says as if from our perspective: “Because He is difficult to contemplate, He breathed His own spirit into a body similar to ours, and sent Him down here, so that we might be able to hear from Him and learn.” But, as we have explained, although the Son is also difficult to contemplate, being God the Word through whom all things came to be, He nevertheless dwelt among us. If Celsus understood what we say concerning the Spirit of God, and that “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,” he would not have answered himself, as if from us: “God sent His spirit down here infused into a body.” For God always communicates His own Spirit to those B who are capable of partaking of Him, and when that Spirit dwells in those who are worthy of Him, it is neither cut off nor divided. For we do not call the Spirit a body, just as fire is not a body, which is what is meant by the statement, “Our God is a consuming fire.” for all these things are spoken metaphorically to represent the intelligible nature by means of familiar and bodily terms. And just as, if sins are said to be “wood, and hay, and stubble,” we do not say that sins are bodies; and if good deeds are said to be “gold, and silver, and precious stones,” we will not say that good deeds are bodies; so, even if God is said to be a fire consuming the wood, and the hay, and the stubble, and every substance of sin, we shall not conceive of Him as a body; just as, even if He is called fire, we do not think him to be a body. Thus, if God is called Spirit, we do not say that He is a body. For it is the custom of Scripture to name intelligible things “spirits” and “spiritual” in order to distinguish them from sensible things; for instance, as Paul says, “But our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of a New Covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but C as if one said fire, not a body,
the spirit gives life." By "letter," he designates the sensible interpretation of the divinely inspired Scriptures; by "spirit," that which pertains to the intellect. The same judgment, therefore, applies to the passage, "God is Spirit." For since the Samaritans and the Jews were performing what was commanded by the Law in a bodily and typical manner, the Savior said to the Samaritan woman, "A time is coming when you will worship the Father neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." By these words He taught that God should not be worshipped in the flesh and with fleshly sacrifices, but "in spirit." For He will be considered Spirit insofar as He is worshipped in spirit and intellectually. Nor is it necessary to worship the Father in types, but in truth, which "came through Jesus Christ," after the Law had been given through Moses. For "whenever we turn to the Lord (and the Lord is the Spirit), the veil is removed from our heart whenever Moses is read."
Since Celsus did not understand these things regarding the Spirit of God—"for the natural (psychical) man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are discerned spiritually"—he draws the conclusion regarding us that, by saying God is Spirit, we differ in no way from the Stoics among the Greeks, who assert that God is a spirit passing through all things and containing all things within Himself. While it is true that the oversight and providence of God permeate all things, it is not as the Stoics' spirit; and while providence contains all things for which it provides and grasps them, it does not do so as a body containing what is also a body, but as a divine power encompassing what it contains.
If, then, one were to believe the Stoics, who say that first principles are corporeal and therefore subject everything to corruption—endangering even the God over all, were it not that this seems entirely absurd to them—the Word of God, which descends even to men and the smallest things, would be nothing other than a corporeal spirit. But according to us, who endeavor to demonstrate that the rational soul excels every corporeal nature and is an invisible and incorporeal substance, God the Word, through whom all things were made, could not be a body—He who reaches forth so that all things might come to be according to the Word, not only to men, but even to things that are considered most minimal and are governed by nature.
Therefore, the followers of the Stoa claim that all things are to be consumed by fire. We, however, do not know of any incorporeal substance being consumed by fire, nor do we believe that the soul of man, or of angels, or of thrones, or of dominations, or of principalities, or of powers, is resolved into fire. Thus, it is in vain that Celsus has spoken...
A because he does not know the things of the Spirit of God, saying: "Since the Son who is born in a human body is a spirit sent from God, not even the Son of God himself could be immortal." Then again, he muddies his own argument, as though some of us did not confess that God is Spirit, but rather his Son, and he thinks that he is replying by saying: "There is no nature of spirit such that it remains forever." It is as if, when we say that our God is a consuming fire, he were to object that there is no nature of fire such that it remains forever; he does not see how we say that our God is a fire, and what things he consumes—namely, sins and vice. For it befits a good God, after every man has shown through his struggle the kind of athlete he has become, to consume B by the fire of punishment his vice. Then again, he takes up that which is not said by us, saying: "It is necessary that God breathed out his spirit when he died; and consistent with this is that Jesus could not have risen with his body. For God would not have taken back the spirit he had given if it had been contaminated by the nature of the body." It is foolish, therefore, for us to answer these remarks as if they were our own, when they are not. Next, he repeats the same things, after having said much in the earlier passages and mocked the birth of God from a Virgin—to which we replied as best we could—and says: "But if he wished to send a spirit from himself, what need was there to breathe it into a woman's womb? For he could already have fashioned men known to him, and could have fitted a body to this, and not have cast his own spirit into such a sink of filth. C And so, had he descended immediately from above, there would not have been such disbelief." And he said these things because he does not understand the pure and virginal birth, and one free from any corruption, of the body that was to serve for the salvation of men. He who displays his Stoic learning, and yet pretends not to have acquainted himself with the teaching concerning "things indifferent," thinks that the divine nature is cast into, and contaminated by, filth—whether it stays in the body of a woman until the body is fashioned for it, or it assumes a body; acting somewhat like those who conceive that the rays of the sun are polluted when they fall upon mud and foul-smelling bodies, and do not remain pure even there. Moreover, even if, according to Celsus’s hypothesis, the body of Jesus had been fashioned without being born, D those who saw the body would not immediately have believed that it had not been born. For that which is seen does not proclaim the nature from which it has descended. For example, if by hypothesis there were some honey not made by bees, neither taste nor sight would tell anyone that it was not from bees; just as that which is from bees does not immediately proclaim [it].
A His appearance, then, was base, and less than that of the sons of men." Celsus heard this, since it seemed to him that these things were useful for calumniating Jesus; yet he by no means attends to the words of the Psalm, where it is said: "Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one. In thy majesty and in thy beauty, and proceed, and prosper, and reign."
76. But suppose he had not read the prophecy, or had indeed read it, but was deceived by unskilled interpreters who deny that it refers to Jesus; for example, what the Gospel says about his having ascended a high mountain, and having been transfigured before his disciples, and having been seen in glory, where Moses and Elias were seen in glory "saying his departure, which he was about to fulfill at Jerusalem." If then the prophet says: "We saw him, and he had no form, nor beauty," and so on, and Celsus admits that this prophecy is referred to Jesus, he is blind to the noble argument concerning the interpretation of this passage: he does not see that it is a great argument that one who seemed to be a formless Jesus is the Son of God, because it had been prophesied long before what his appearance would be. But if another prophet says that he is endowed with grace and beauty, he does not wish this prophecy to be referred to Christ. And yet, if he clearly takes from the Gospels that "he had no form, nor beauty, but his appearance was base, and less than the sons of men," not because the prophet said these things, as Celsus might say, but according to the Gospel—now, since neither the Gospels nor the apostles declare that he had no form or beauty, it is clear that Celsus is compelled to confess that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ: a fact which repels the calumnies of Jesus.
77. Then he says: "Since a divine Spirit B was in a body, it was necessary that it should in every way excel the rest in magnitude, or beauty, or strength, or voice, or impressiveness, or persuasiveness; for it is impossible that that in which something divine beyond others was present should differ in nothing from another." And this one, he says, differed in nothing from anyone else; but, as they say, he was small, and ill-favored, and ignoble. It clearly appears in these points also, that if he wishes to accuse Jesus, C he thinks that he should [argue] either by magnitude, or by beauty—yet he [admits] that he differed in nothing from anyone else. And it is wonderful, according to his nature, that the Creator can change matter into all things that he wills, and [is able] to give it any quality whatsoever, according to what is said: "He had no form, nor beauty." But when he is [so] glorious and D impressive, then he should appear as it is fitting for each to see him. But it is not wonderful, even if there is matter, that it is mutable, and can be changed by the craftsman at his will into any quality, provided it is said: "He had no form, nor beauty," yet at other times he has [all qualities].
A Since he attempts to use the Scriptures—acting as one who believes B them—wherever they seem to provide him with an opportunity for accusation, but does not even pretend to recognize the places where, in the same Scriptures, the contrary appears to be said to those adopted for the purpose of accusation, he behaves in this way. It is agreed that it is written that the body of Jesus was deformed, yet not that it was of an ignoble appearance, as Celsus has set forth; nor is it clearly indicated that it was of small stature. The passage stands thus, recorded in Isaiah, prophesying that he would come down to the many not in a graceful form, nor in any superior beauty: "Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We announced in his presence, as a child, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form to him, and no glory; and we saw him, and he had no form, nor beauty." C For when the things of the flesh are compared with the glory of the Divinity, they appear to be of no account; for the Son appeared in a form of extreme indecency. And if the prophet says: "We saw him, and he had no form, nor beauty," but there is also [a contrary account], then D the things of the flesh, being compared with the glory of the Divinity, appear to be of no account or value. For the Son appeared in a form that was most uncomely. And he had a form; or even if the prophet says: "We saw him, and he had no form, nor beauty," [it is because] [alt-version omitted]
"his form was uncomely, and failing before the sons of men." Could it be that Celsus heard these things, since he thought them useful to himself for accusing Jesus, but did not attend to the things said in the forty-fourth Psalm, in what way it is spoken: "Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, in thy splendor and thy beauty; and bend [thy bow], and prosper, and reign"? But suppose he had not read the prophecy, or having read it, was distracted by those who interpret it falsely, as though it were not prophesied concerning Jesus Christ: what will he say concerning the Gospel, in which, having ascended into a high mountain, he was transfigured B before the disciples, and was seen in glory? At which time also Moses and Elias, being seen in glory, "spoke of his departure, which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem." Or if, when the prophet says, "We saw him, and he had no form, nor beauty," and the rest, Celsus admits that this prophecy refers to Jesus, while being blind regarding the acceptance of what is said, and not seeing that it is a great demonstration that Jesus, who seemed to be uncomely, is the Son of God, because it had been prophesied many years before his birth even concerning his form; yet when another prophet says there is splendor and beauty C concerning him, does he no longer wish the prophecy to be referred to Christ? And if it were clearly possible to take from the Gospels, "He had no form, nor beauty, but his form was uncomely and failing before the sons of men," perhaps one might say that Celsus did not say these things according to the prophetic [word], but according to the evangelical. But now, since neither the Gospels nor the apostles show that he had no form nor beauty, it is clear that he is forced to accept that which is from the prophecy as being fulfilled D concerning Christ; which no longer permits his accusations against Jesus to proceed. And again, he who says: "Since there was a divine spirit in the body, it ought in every way to differ from the rest, either in size, or voice, or strength, or majesty, or power of persuasion"—how did he not see the variation of his body towards that which was possible for those who saw him, and for this reason useful, appearing in such a way as it was fitting for each one to see? And it is not wonderful that matter, being by nature mutable and changeable, and capable of being transformed into all things that the Creator wishes, and being receptive of every quality that the craftsman desires, should at one time have the quality according to which it is said, "He had no form, nor beauty," and at another time, in such a glorious and...
spectators of such beauty, that the three apostles who had ascended with Jesus fell upon their faces. But Celsus will consider these things, as well as the other wonders regarding Jesus, to be inventions, and to differ in no way from fables—a point we have already refuted at length in the preceding pages. Yet, there is a mystical meaning in the account describing the different forms of Jesus, which are to be referred to the nature of the divine Word, appearing not the same to the multitude as to those who are able to follow Him into the high mountain we have described. For to those who are still below, and not yet prepared to ascend, the Word has no form and no beauty; for to such people His form is inglorious and inferior to the words that arise from men—and for this reason, they are figuratively called "sons of men." Indeed, one could say that the discourses of philosophers, being "sons of men," are far more splendid than the Word of God which, when preached to the multitude, presents the "foolishness of preaching," and therefore gives occasion to those who look only upon this "foolishness of preaching" to say: "We saw Him, and He had no beauty or comeliness." But to those who have received the strength to follow Him as He ascends the high mountain, He has a more divine form. This is beheld by those who, like Peter, have in themselves the building of the Church from the Word, and have attained such a state that no gate of Hades shall prevail against them; those who have been exalted by the Word from the gates of death, that they may declare all the praises of God in the gates of the daughter of Sion; and those who have been born of words of great power, lacking nothing to be "sons of thunder." But how could Celsus and the enemies of the divine Word, who have not honestly examined the doctrines of Christianity, know the intention behind the different forms of Jesus? For my part, I add also the stages of His age, and what He did before He suffered and after He rose from the dead.
Next, Celsus says something like this: "Furthermore, if God desired, like the Zeus in the comedy, to rescue the human race from evils after waking from a long sleep, why did He send this Spirit of yours into one corner? It would have been necessary to breathe Him into many bodies and send Him across the whole world." But the comedian, to raise a laugh in the theater, wrote that Zeus, having been awakened, sent Hermes to the Athenians and Lacedaemonians; whereas you, for the sake of the Word, have sent Him into one corner. But you do not think it more ridiculous to have sent Him to the Jews.
A Observe, then, in these matters too, the indecency of Celsus, who, in a manner unbecoming a philosopher, brings in a comic poet to make people laugh, and compares the Creator of the universe, our God, to the one who, in his story, sends Hermes after waking from sleep. We have said, in the preceding pages, that God did not send Jesus to the human race as if awakening from a long sleep, because He had filled the economy according to the incarnation now for reasonable causes, but He has always benefited the human race. For nothing good has ever come about among men without the divine Word having visited the souls of those who, even for a short time, were capable of receiving such operations of the divine Word. But the appearance of Jesus, which seems to have taken place in one corner, also occurred for a good reason; since it was fitting for those who had been taught about one God, and who read His prophets, and learned that Christ was being preached, that the one who was prophesied should appear, and appear at a time when the Word was about to be poured forth from one corner B over the whole inhabited world. And so, there was no need for many bodies to exist everywhere, and many spirits in proportion to Jesus, in order for the whole inhabited world of men to be illuminated by the Word of God. For it sufficed that the one Word, having risen like a sun of righteousness from Judea, should send forth His rays, reaching the souls of those who wished to receive Him. But if anyone desires to see many bodies filled with the divine Spirit, serving in proportion to that one Christ for the salvation of men everywhere; let him consider those who everywhere teach the doctrine of Jesus in a healthy manner and with an upright life—men also called "christs" by the divine Scriptures, in the passage: "Touch not my christs, and do my prophets no harm." For just as we have heard that Antichrist is coming, and yet have learned that there are many antichrists in the world; in the same way, knowing that Christ has come, we perceive that through Him many have become "christs" in the world, who in proportion to Him have loved righteousness and hated iniquity. And for this reason, God—the God of Christ—anointed them also with the oil of gladness. But while He indeed, for having loved righteousness and hated iniquity beyond His fellows, has received the first fruits of the anointing, and, if it is proper to name it so, the whole anointing of the oil of gladness; His fellows, each as he was able to receive it, have shared C in His anointing. Wherefore, since Christ is the head of the Church, so that Christ and the Church are one body, the ointment D descends from the head onto the beard of Aaron, which signifies the perfect man, and onto the hem of his garment. And these things I have said against that indecorous remark of Celsus.
A who says: "It would have been necessary to breathe this into many bodies and send it over the whole earth." But that comic poet, indeed, to provoke laughter, wrote that Jupiter, first asleep and then awakened, sent Hermes to the Greeks; but the Word, knowing that the nature of God is not subject to sleep, teaches us that the affairs of this world are administered by God according to the circumstances of time and as reason demands. But it is no wonder, since "the judgments of God are great and hard to explain," that undisciplined souls, B and Celsus along with them, go astray. It is not, therefore, ridiculous that the Son of God was sent to the Jews, among whom the prophets had been, so that, beginning his course from there, he might arise in body, virtue, and spirit for the lands of souls that no longer wished to be deprived of God.
Moving on from these things, Celsus says that the Chaldeans were most divine from the beginning, from whom the fallacious discipline of astrology was distributed to men. C And in the same place he ranks the magi among the most divine nations, from whom the art named after them originated and spread to other nations for the destruction of those who use it. As for the Egyptians, Celsus formerly judged them to be in error, as those who indeed had more elegant enclosures for the temples they considered sacred, but inside had nothing but monkeys, or crocodiles, or goats, or asps, or some animal. But now he pleases to call them a most divine nation, and most divine from the beginning; I suppose, because they have been hostile to the Jews from the beginning. The Persians, too, who couple with their mothers and mingle their bodies with their daughters, seem to Celsus to be a divine nation; D as also the Indians, some of whom he said above ate human flesh. But the Jews, who commit none of these things, and especially the ancients, he not only does not call most divine, but says they will soon perish; and this he pronounces as if from a tripod. He does not, of course, turn his mind to all the care that God has applied to the Jews, nor to the holy laws he once imposed upon them; he does not see that through their fault salvation has come to the nations, that their transgression is the riches of the world, and their diminution the riches of the nations, until the "fullness of the nations" has come in, so that after this "all Israel," which Celsus does not understand what it is, "might be saved." I know not how he says concerning God that "He who knows all things did not know that he was sending his Son to evil men, who were to sin and punish him." But here he seems intentionally to have forgotten our doctrine which says that the prophets of God, by the divine Spirit, foresaw and foretold whatsoever Jesus was to suffer.
was [the sixth book], and that the prophets of God have prophesied. *To which it does not follow [that God should be ignorant], "that He sends His Son to men who are evil and about to sin, so that they may punish Him."* He immediately says that this, having been predicted long ago, is being put forward as a defense by us. But, since our sixth volume has received a sufficient description, having brought the discourse to a halt somewhere there, we shall begin, God granting, the seventh; in which he thinks he is countering what we say: that the prophets foretold everything concerning Jesus. And since these things are many and require a longer discourse to address them, we were unwilling either to cut the argument short, compelled by the size of the volume, or, in order not to cut the argument short, to make the sixth volume extremely large and beyond [all] proportion.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS: BOOK SEVEN
In the six previous books, holy brother Ambrose, we have struggled, as much as we were able, against Celsus’s accusations against the Christians, and we have left nothing, as far as lay in our power, unexamined and untested, nor have we passed over anything to which we did not, as far as was possible for us, respond, having invoked God through Jesus Christ Himself—the one slandered by Celsus—so that He might shine into our heart, being as He is the Truth, those things which refute the lie. We are now beginning this seventh composition, saying that prophetic prayer in our supplication to God: "In Thy truth, destroy them"—clearly meaning those arguments which are opposed to the truth; for these are destroyed by the truth of God. So that, when they are destroyed, all, being freed from [the] distraction A of mind, may say what follows: "I will willingly sacrifice to Thee," offering a rational and smoke-free sacrifice to the God of all.
Now it is the task before Celsus to slander the argument which asserts that the things concerning Jesus the Christ were prophesied by the prophets among the Jews. And first of all we examine what he thinks: that those who introduce a god other than the God of the Jews are in no way able to counter his problems; but that we, who have maintained the same God, take refuge in the defense [provided] by the things prophesied concerning Christ. He says with regard to these things: "Let us see what sort of defense they will find: none will be found by those who have been pleased to introduce another god."
But regarding the things alleged by Celsus, let us now, if you will, make our defense. A Some [people], when they hear about such things as being foretold, respond with the familiar, wise [remark] that it "had to happen that way." The proof? "Because these things were predicted long ago." We shall reply to these people that the things Celsus just said, a little before this, against Jesus and the Christians are so weak that even those who impiously introduce another god could most easily reply to the things said by Celsus. And if it were not absurd to provide the weaker [of faith] with arguments for embracing worse doctrines, we too would have done this, to prove the falsehood of the claim that those who introduce another god have no defense regarding the prophets, in addition to the things said above.
He says, therefore: "The things foretold by the Pythia, or at Didyma [or] in the Branchidae, or at Ammon, [or] by ten thousand other oracles—by which practically the whole earth was settled—these are [dismissed] by them as of no account, whereas the things [said] in Judea—uttered after their fashion, or not even uttered at all, such as are still current even now among those around Phoenicia and Palestine—these they consider marvelous and unchanging." B Let us say, then, concerning the oracles enumerated, that it is possible for us, by gathering [arguments] from Aristotle and those who have philosophized in the Peripatetic school, to say not a few things for the subversion of the argument concerning the Pythia and the remaining oracles; and it is possible, by citing the things said by Epicurus and those who embrace his doctrine regarding the same matters, to show that even some Greeks subvert the oracles that are thought to be, and are admired as, [divine throughout] all Greece.
But, for the sake of argument, let it be granted that the things concerning the Pythia and the remaining oracles are not fabrications, nor human pretenses regarding divine inspiration. Let us see, then, if even so it cannot be demonstrated to those who examine matters truthfully, that even for one who accepts that these oracles exist, it is not necessary to admit that there are any gods alongside them; rather, quite the contrary: [that there are] certain base demons and spirits hostile to the human race, who hinder the soul's ascent, and its journey through virtue, and its restoration to true piety toward God.
C It is recorded, then, concerning the Pythia, which seems to happen to be more illustrious than the other oracles, that Apollo's prophetess, sitting over the opening of the Castalian [fountain], receives a spirit into her female parts; and filled with this, she gives utterance to the oracles which are supposed to be revered and divine. Observe, then, by these things, whether the impurity and profanity of that spirit is not manifested, moving into the soul of the prophetess not through delicate and obscure passages—and [many] much purer than female parts—but through those which not even a [decent] person would look at, or name, or even touch, and [by which]... [alt-version omitted] D
this not once or twice (since perhaps that might seem more tolerable), but as often as she is believed to prophesy from Apollo. But also A to drive the supposed prophetess into ecstasy and a manic state, so that she no longer follows her own mind, is not the work of a divine Spirit; for it would be required that he who is possessed by the divine Spirit should, far sooner than anyone taught by oracles, be helped in matters contributing to public and natural life, or toward what is advantageous and beneficial, and should be clearer-sighted precisely at the time when the divine power is with him. Therefore, we prove, gathering from the sacred Scriptures, that the prophets among the Jews, being illuminated by the divine Spirit as much as was even useful to the prophets themselves, were the first to enjoy B the arrival of the higher power upon them; and through what I might call the touch of the so-called Holy Spirit upon their soul, they became clearer-sighted in their mind and brighter in their soul; but also the body no longer stood in the way of a life of virtue, as though it were being put to death according to what we call the mind of the flesh. For we are convinced that the actions of the body, and the enmities toward God which arise from the mind of the flesh, are put to death by a more divine Spirit. But if the Pythia is beside herself and not in her own mind when she prophesies, what kind of spirit must we think it is that pours darkness over the mind and reason, if not such as is the race of demons, whom not a few Christians drive out from those who suffer, without any curious or magical or sorcerous art, but by simple prayer and C adjurations, and whatever a simpler person might be able to bring? For generally, laypeople do such things, with the grace of the word of Christ revealing the cheapness and weakness of the demons, not needing, in order to be defeated, yield, and depart from the soul and body of a person, someone who is wise and powerful in his logical demonstrations concerning the faith. But also, if it is believed—not only among Christians and Jews, but also among many other Greeks and barbarians—that the human soul lives and exists after its separation from the body; and if it is demonstrated by reason that, indeed, the pure soul, not weighed down by the leaden weights of vice, is carried aloft D to the places of the purer and ethereal bodies, leaving behind the heavy bodies here and the defilements within them; while the evil soul, dragged down to the earth by sins and unable even to breathe, wanders and wallows here, and it is said that it is dragged about in the vicinity of tombs—where the phantom images of souls, as it were—and one purely about the earth: what manner of spirit must one believe it to be
A which remains bound for entire ages, if I may so speak, to buildings and places, whether this occurs through magic incantations or on account of their own vices? Reason itself requires us to judge such spirits as evil, which abuse the art of divination—a power that is indifferent—for the sake of deceiving men and dragging them away from God and from the pure piety toward Him. From this it also appears that such beings are of this nature: they love to feed their bodies on the vapors of victims and the exhalations of blood and burnt offerings; they take pleasure in such things and are present at them as if they sought to preserve their life therefrom. This is not unlike those perverse men who, neglecting a life that is purer and removed from bodies, are concerned solely, through the desire for bodily pleasures, to live in an earthly body. If that Delphic Apollo was a god, as the Greeks think, whom was it more fitting for him to have chosen as a prophet than a wise man, or, if such a one were not found, at least one who was making progress in wisdom? How would he not have preferred a man rather than a woman to prophesy? And if he even desired a woman, as one perhaps unable to use a male, or not finding pleasure in anything other than the secret parts of women, was it not more fitting for him to have chosen a virgin rather than a married woman to declare his will? But as it is, the Pythian, who is admired among the Greeks, B deemed no wise man—no, nor even any man at all—worthy of, as the Greeks assume, being possessed by his divinity; nor did he choose among the female sex any virgin, or any woman wise and benefited by philosophy, but rather a woman from the common people. Perhaps the excelling men were better than to be acted upon by his possession. Moreover, if he were a god, he ought to have used his foreknowledge as bait, if I may so name it, for the conversion, healing, and moral correction of men. But as it is, history hands down nothing of the kind concerning him; for even if he said that Socrates was the wisest of all men, he obscured this praise by what he added concerning Euripides and Sophocles: Sapiens Sophocles, sed Euripides sapientior. C Since, therefore, he proclaimed the writers of tragedies to be wise, and since Socrates is judged to be wiser than those who were, according to the Pythia, no one is wiser. For the witness of my own wisdom, such as it is, I shall provide you with the god who is at Delphi. For you surely know Chaerephon; he was my companion from his youth, and he was also a popular friend of yours; he fled this exile with you, and returned with you. And you know what kind of man Chaerephon was, how vehement he was in whatever he undertook; and he, having once gone to Delphi, dared to inquire of the oracle concerning this matter; and do not, I pray you, men, raise a tumult because of what I am about to say; for he asked whether there was anyone wiser than I. The Pythian replied that no one was wiser than me. D Sapiens Sophocles, sed Euripides sapientior. Omnium autem virorum Socrates sapientior. Socrates sapientissimus.
A But since he declares that he can explain the manner of the oracles among the Phoenicians and Palestinians—as if he had investigated and scrutinized the matter—let us consider this, too. First of all, he says there are many kinds of prophecy, but he does not explain what they are, nor could he; he merely makes a false assertion. And we may observe the most perfect among these men. He says that many nameless men, on any given occasion, in temples or outside of temples, do this with the greatest ease; others go into cities and army camps and, having gathered a crowd, break out into utterances as if inspired. He says it is easy for everyone to say, "I am God," B or "the Son of God," or "Divine Spirit." "I come, for the world is perishing, and you, O men, are being destroyed for your iniquities. But I wish to save you, and you shall see me coming again with heavenly power. Blessed is he who worships me now; all others I will cast into eternal fire, and both cities and lands. And unto men, if they do not repent, I will bring punishments that shall be in vain and evoke lamentations; those who have believed in me I will save for eternity." And he adds, "To these promises he joins things unknown, fanatical, and utterly dark, for which no wise man can find any meaning." For they are obscure, and any imposter can claim to say them, adjusting them to suit his own purposes.
10. But he ought, if he were well-intentioned, to have quoted the very words of the prophecies, in which the Almighty is introduced speaking, or in which the Son of God or the Holy Spirit is believed to be the speaker. For in this way he would have struggled to refute what was said and shown that these logoi were not from God, but were instead discourses that turned men away from sin, reproved those who then lived, and predicted future events. Therefore, the people of the time wrote down and preserved these prophecies so that those who came later, by reading them as the utterances of God, might admire them and, being benefited, might not only refrain from sins C and the prophets' commandments. Such are Menander. Eus. lib. VI, c. 25, Eccl. hist.; Tertull., De praescriptione adversus haereticos: After him came the disciple of this man, who said the same things that Simon himself said, and that which Simon said, this he said was Menander, denying that anyone could have salvation unless he was baptized in his name. Spencer.
(78) Men. I read with Boherellus, *men*.
(79) The codices Reg. and Basileensis, *gnōma*. Hoeschel in text, *gnōnai*, Spencer, *gnōma*.
(80) Hoeschel and Mss., *legōn* (Spencer, *legōn*) *einai pisteuō*. But this is absent in Guietus.
(81) Here, Guietus thinks one should read *tēs*.
A in caverns of the earth, of whom the world was not worthy; always looking towards God and the invisible things of God, which, since they are not seen by the senses, are necessarily eternal. The life of each of the prophets has been recorded; but it is sufficient for the present to set forth the life of Moses—for there are prophecies of his recorded in the Law—and that of Jeremiah, appearing in the prophecy that bears his name, and that of Isaiah, who walked for three years naked and barefoot, exceeding all asceticism. Consider also the vigorous life of the youths, Daniel and those with him, and read of their water-drinking, and how their food was pulse, abstaining from living things. If you are able, observe also things before these: Noe having prophesied, and Isaac having blessed his son prophetically, and Jacob saying to each of the twelve: "Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days." These, and countless others, having prophesied for God, also predicted those things concerning Jesus Christ. On this account, we set no store by the things foretold by the Pythia, or the Dodonids, or at Claros, or in the Branchidae, or those of Ammon, or those of countless others said to be prophets; B but we marvel at the things foretold by those who prophesied in Judea, seeing that their vigorous, strenuous, and solemn life was worthy of a Spirit of God prophesying in a new way, and having nothing similar to the divinations of demons. I do not know how Celsus, having said, "But the things said in Judea after their manner," added, "or not said"—as an unbeliever saying that it was possible that these were not said, but perhaps things not said were recorded. For he does not know the times, nor that many years before, they had predicted countless things and also spoke of the coming of Christ. And again, wishing to slander the ancient prophets, he says they prophesied in this manner, in which, he says, those around Phoenicia and Palestine are still accustomed to do even now, not indicating whether he is speaking of certain people alien to the doctrine of the Jews and Christians, C or of those prophesying in the Jewish manner according to the character of the prophets. But however things may be, what he says is proven false. For neither have any of those alien to the faith done anything similar to the prophets, nor are any prophets among the Jews recorded as having arisen after the time of Jesus. For it is agreed that the Holy Spirit has abandoned them, as they acted impiously against God and against the one who was predicted by their own prophets. Signs of the Holy Spirit did indeed appear at the beginning of Jesus' teaching, and more after his ascension, but later fewer; yet even now there are traces of it among a few, D whose souls have been cleansed by the Word and by the deeds according to Him. For the Holy Spirit...
A of instruction will flee from deceit, and will remove itself from thoughts that are without understanding. Since Celsus also promises to describe the manner of the oracles in Phoenicia and Palestine, as one who has heard and fully learned them, come, let us also consider these. First, he says that there are many kinds of prophecies, without setting them forth; for he could not, but only falsely exaggerated. Let us see what he deems to be the most perfect among these men. "Many," he says, "and unnamed, easily, from any casual cause, both in temples and outside of temples; and others, gathering and visiting cities or military camps, move about as if prophesying." It is easy and habitual for each of them to say: "I am God," B or "a Son of God," or "a divine Spirit." "But I have come, for the world is already perishing, and you, O men, are being destroyed for your injustices. But I wish to save you, and you will see me again returning with heavenly power. Blessed is the one who has worshipped me now; but upon all the others I will cast eternal fire, and upon their cities and lands. And humans, who do not know the punishments that await them, will repent in vain and groan; but those who have believed me I will keep eternal." Then he adds to these: "Making these threats, they add after them things unknown, C and fanatical, and altogether dark, of which no one who has sense could find the meaning; for they are unclear and signify nothing, but to the senseless or to any trickster they provide an opportunity for claiming what is said in whatever way he wishes."
But he ought, if he were fair-minded toward the accusation, to have set forth the prophecies in their very words; whether those in which the speaker was believed to be God Almighty, or those in which it was believed to be the Son of God, or those in which it was believed to be the Holy Spirit. For thus he would have struggled D to refute what was said and to show that the discourses were not inspired, containing as they do a turning away from sins, and a rebuke of those who were then living, and foreknowledge regarding those things which were to come. For this reason, those who were their contemporaries transcribed their prophecies and kept them, so that even those who came after, reading them, might admire them as oracles of God, and, being profited, not only...
from these admonitions but also from the predictions which events taught them had been uttered by a divine Spirit, might practice a piety in conformity with such doctrine and obey the law and the prophets. Now the prophets, whatever was useful to be understood immediately by those who heard them and contributed to the correction of their morals, they declared according to the will of God without any obscurity; but whatever was more mystical and more contemplative, and involved a theory beyond the hearing of the multitude, these they expressed through enigmas and allegories, and what are called dark sayings, and so-called parables or proverbs, so that those who do not shun labor, but undertake every toil for the sake of virtue and truth, might search and find, and having found, might manage them as reason prescribes. But the hardy Celsus, as if angered because he had not understood such words of the prophets A, reviled them, saying: "To these promises they add things successive, unknown, fanatical, and entirely dark, from which no one possessing intelligence could find meaning, for they are unclear and signify nothing; yet they give occasion to any stupid person or impostor to claim the statement for whatever purpose he wishes." And he seemed to me to have said this craftily, wishing, as far as it is in his power, to prevent those who encounter the prophecies from examining and testing their meaning; and he suffers something similar to those who said regarding a certain prophet who had entered in and foretold future things: "Why did this madman come to you?" It is likely, therefore, that there are arguments much wiser than our own condition, which are able to demonstrate that Celsus is lying in these matters and that the prophecies are inspired by God; nevertheless, we too, as far as we were able, have done so, having explained to the letter those things which Celsus calls fanatical and entirely obscure, in the commentaries we have written on Isaiah, and on Ezekiel, and on some of the twelve B. But when God grants the increase in his word, at whatever times He wishes, what is missing will be added to those things already written down on these, or as many as we may succeed in clarifying. And others, too, who wish to examine Scripture, if they possess intelligence, might be able to find its meaning; for it is truly obscure in many places, yet not, as Celsus says, without any meaning. Nor can any stupid person or impostor smooth them over or claim the sense of what is said for whatever purpose he wishes; but the one who is truly wise in Christ alone could render the entire sequence of those things spoken with concealment in the prophecies, comparing spiritual things with spiritual C, and confirming each of the things found from the habit of usage in the Scriptures. And one must not believe Celsus when he says that there is no token of such men. D
A Nor indeed, in the times of Celsus, have there existed any prophets similar to the ancients; for then their prophecies would have been recorded by those who accepted and admired them, in the same way that the prophecies of old were recorded. But it seems to me entirely manifest that Celsus’s falsehood is exposed by the fact that the so-called prophets, of whom he was an auditor, when challenged by Celsus, confessed to him what they lacked—and that they were inventing their words, speaking inconsistently. Yet he ought to have provided the names of those whom he claimed to have heard, so that from the names, if indeed he were able to speak them, it might be apparent to those capable of judging whether what he said was true or false. Moreover, he thinks that those who defend the cause of Christ on the basis of the prophets have no answer when something that is said about God appears base, or shameful, or unclean, or trivial. For this reason, as if no defense remained, he takes for himself as conceded a myriad of things that are by no means conceded. But it is necessary to know that those who desire to live according to the divine Scriptures, and who know that "The knowledge of an unwise man is as words without investigation" (Eccli. XXI, 18), and who have read "Being ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you" (I Pet. III, 15), do not merely take refuge in the claim that such things were foretold; but they also strive to resolve what appear to be absurdities and to show that there is nothing base, or shameful, or unclean, or trivial in the words, but that they are of such a nature as they must be understood by those who understand the divine Scripture. He should have adduced from the prophets what seemed to him to be base, or what he considered shameful, or what he thought to be unclean, or what he supposed to be B defiled, if indeed he saw such things said in the prophets. For his discourse would thus have been more striking and more effective for what he intended; but as it is, he did not adduce them, but rather, raising a clamor, he threatens that such things appear in the Scriptures, slandering them. Therefore, no argument is needed to respond to mere empty noises of words in order to show that nothing base, or shameful, or unclean, or defiled is in the words of the prophets.
But God does not do or suffer the most shameful things, nor does He serve evil, as Celsus thinks; for none of these things has been foretold, even if he says they have been. He ought to have brought forth from the prophets the expressions pointing to this, if God were indeed to serve evil, or to do or suffer the most shameful things, rather than wishing to defile the ears of his listeners in vain. The prophets foretold what Christ would suffer, even setting forth the cause why He would suffer; and God knew the things that His Christ would suffer. But whence did he conclude that these were most defiled and most unclean, as Celsus says? But he will perhaps appear to teach how these things which Christ endured were most defiled and most unclean, in these words: "For what else," he says, "did it mean..."
A for God to eat sheep’s flesh, and to drink gall or vinegar, than to feed on filth?" But according to us, God did not eat sheep’s flesh; and if Jesus appeared to eat, he ate only insofar as he wore a body. And regarding the gall and the vinegar, which were prophesied as things to be drunk by him in the words, "They gave me gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," we have already spoken in the preceding pages, and we are forced by Celsus to repeat the same things; for those who plot against the word of truth always offer to Christ and the Son of God the gall from their own wickedness and the vinegar from their own inclination toward evil, which, after he tasted, he does not wish to drink.
B Then after this, wishing to overturn the faith of those who have accepted the things concerning Jesus because they were foretold, he says: "Come now, if the prophets had foretold that the great God, that I may say nothing more offensive, would be a slave, or would be sick, or would die; would it then be necessary for God to die, or to be a slave, or to be sick, because it had been foretold, so that he might be believed to be God, having died?" But the prophets would never foretell this; for it is evil and impious. "Therefore, we must not consider whether they foretold it or did not foretell it; but whether the deed is worthy of God and good." But to that which is shameful and evil, even if all men, driven by madness, seemed to predict it, no belief should be given. "How, therefore, can the things that happened to him, as if to God, be considered holy?" Hence, it appears through these words that Celsus has perceived that the topic of the things concerning Jesus being prophesied has some strength toward persuading C the hearers, but he attempts to overturn the argument with another plausible point, saying: "Therefore, we need not consider whether they foretold it or did not." But if he had wished to oppose what is said not fallaciously, but demonstratively, he ought to have said: "Therefore it must be demonstrated that they did not foretell it; or that the things concerning Christ do not have their fulfillment in Jesus, as they were foretold," and to bring forward the demonstration that he believes he possesses. For thus it would have appeared which prophecies we refer to Jesus, and how he proves our interpretation to be false; and it would be discovered whether he valiantly overturns what we bring forward from the prophets to the discourse concerning Jesus, or whether he is convicted of impudently wishing to do violence to the evidence of truth, as if it were not truth. Since, however, he poses certain D impossible things and things ill-befitting to God, he says: "If these things were prophesied concerning the God over all, should one, because they are predicted, believe such things about God?" And he thinks he establishes that, even if the prophets had truly predicted such things concerning the Son of God, it is impossible that he should have suffered them, or that one ought to believe those who have predicted it.
We must say that his hypothesis is absurd, being such as would form propositions terminating in mutually contradictory conclusions; which is demonstrated in this way: If the true prophets say that God will die, these things will happen to God; for it is necessary that those who are the prophets of the great God should not lie. But also, if the true prophets of the God over all say these same things, since things that are impossible by nature are not true, what the prophets say would not happen to God. Now, whenever two propositions terminate in mutually contradictory conclusions through what is called the "argument by two conditionals" 94, the antecedent in both conditionals is refuted; which in this case is: "The prophets predict that the great God will serve, or be ill, or die." Therefore, it is concluded that "The prophets did not predict that the great God would serve, or be ill, or die." And the reasoning proceeds in such a way: If the first is true, the second is also true; but if the first is not true, the second is not true; therefore, the first is not true.
A They bring this mode of reasoning to the subject of "being ill," B or "being enslaved." C D
CONTRA CELSUM BOOK VII.
18. These follow the words of Celsus: Will they not observe this again? If the prophets of the Jews of God predicted these things concerning the son of that one, how does he command them to procure riches, to have dominion, to fill the earth, and to spare no enemies, not even those who have not reached puberty—which, as Moses says, he himself did in the eyes of the Jews—and furthermore threatens them that if they do not do so, they shall be treated as enemies? If the son of this one, the man from Nazareth, lays down contrary laws, commanding that one should not turn to the Father who gives riches and delights in them, because wisdom and glory should not be valued more than food and clothing; and that one need not worry more than the ravens, or the one who once smote and who now must smite again? Does he forget Moses, or is he mocking him?
A And if you know that you are dead, you are dead. If you know that you are dead, you are not dead. And there follows, and there is that which you know, you are not dead; you know that you are dead. And there is that [being the case], therefore this [contradiction] follows: you are dead; there follows [instead], Therefore you do not know that you are dead. They construct their hypothetical propositions in this manner: If you know that you are dead, there is that which you know; it is therefore the case that you are dead. And again, if you know that you are dead, and there is that which you know, you are not dead. Since, however, the one who is dead knows nothing, it is evident that if you know that you are dead, you are not dead. And there follows, as I said before, for both of these hypothetical propositions, the conclusion: Therefore you do not know that you are dead. Something similar exists regarding the hypothesis of Celsus, which we have expounded above.
But not even the things we have assumed as a hypothesis
are similar to the prophecies concerning Jesus. For the prophecies did not predict that God would be crucified, since they say of Him who underwent B death: "And we saw him, and he had no form, nor beauty, but his form was dishonored and failing beyond the sons of men; a man in a blow and in pain, and knowing how to bear infirmity." Observe, then, how they have clearly spoken of the one who suffered human hardships as a man. Jesus Himself, when He knew most exactly that that which was about to die was a man, says to those lying in wait for Him: "But now you seek to kill me, a man, who have told you the truth which I heard from God." But if there happened to be something divine in the man who was understood to be in Him—which was the Only-begotten of God, and the Firstborn of all creation, He who says, "I am the truth," and, "I am the life," and, "I am the door," and, "I am the way," and, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven"—surely another argument C is required for this [being] and His essence than for the man understood in Jesus. Wherefore not even the most simple of Christians, nor those not nurtured in sophisticated reasonings, would say that the truth, or the life, or the way, or the living bread which came down from heaven, or the resurrection, is dead; for He who, in the man seen in Jesus, taught the saying, "I am the resurrection," says that He Himself is the resurrection. But neither is any one of us so thunderstruck [*i.e., mindless*] as to say, "The life is dead," or, "The resurrection is dead." The hypothesis of Celsus might have had a place if we claimed that the prophets had predicted that God the Word, or the truth, or the life, or the resurrection, or anything else of those which the Son of God declares Himself to be, would die. Celsus speaks the truth, therefore, D only in this place.A And the prophets would not say this, for it is evil and impious. For what else is this but to say that the great God will be a servant or will die? But that which was prophesied by the prophets is worthy of God, namely that the radiance of the divine nature and a kind of imprint would come in a holy human soul to the life of Jesus, that he might scatter a word reconciling the one who received him into his own soul and cultivated him to the God of the universe, and leading to the end all things, whose power he has in himself who is the Word of God to be in the body and soul of man. And it will be so, that his rays would not be shut up in him alone, nor that the light providing these rays—being God the Word—is believed to be nowhere else. The things concerning Jesus, therefore, inasmuch as they are understood as having been accomplished by the divinity in him, are holy and not at enmity with the conception of God; but inasmuch as he was a man, adorned more than every other man by the highest participation in the Word himself and in Wisdom herself, he endured, as wise and perfect, the things which it was necessary for him to endure who was doing all things for the sake of the whole human race, or also of the rational creatures. And there is nothing absurd in the man having died, and his death serving as an example not only of dying for piety, but also of having wrought the beginning and the progress of the destruction of the evil one and the devil, who had divided the whole earth among himself. And there are signs of his overthrow in those who, through the advent of Jesus, have fled from everywhere the demons who held them, and, having been liberated from the slavery under them, dedicate themselves to God and to the piety that is, according to their ability, purer every day.
B Next to these things, Celsus says such things as these: "Will they not reflect again on that? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that this man would be his son, how is it that he legislates through Moses to be wealthy, and to rule, and to fill the earth, and to slaughter enemies with pleasure, and to slay them entirely—a thing which he himself, as Moses says, does before the eyes of the Jews—and threatens them that, if they do not obey these things, he will treat them exactly as their enemies? Yet his Son, the man from Nazareth, legislates the contrary: that it is not possible for the wealthy man, or the one desiring to rule, or the one laying claim to wisdom or glory, to approach the Father; that one must not care for food and store-houses any more than the ravens, nor for clothing any less than the lilies; and to the one who has once struck him, one must offer himself to be struck again? Whether is Moses or Jesus lying? Or did the Father, when sending him, forget what he had commanded through Moses?"
A Or, having condemned his own laws, did he repent, and send an angel to deliver contrary instructions? With this matter Celsus—he who boasts that he knows everything—has suffered the most ignorant of fates, imagining that there is no deeper meaning in the law and the prophets regarding the mind of the Scriptures than the words themselves suggest. He does not see how clearly improbable it would be for the Word to promise the carnal wealth of this world to those who have lived rightly, when it is established that the most righteous men have lived in extreme poverty. The prophets themselves, for example, who, because they had lived purely, partook of the divine Spirit, "wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; wandering in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth." For "many are the afflictions of the righteous," according to the Psalmist.
If Celsus had read the law of Moses, he would likely have taken the statement, "Thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow," which is spoken to those who keep the law, as if it had been promised to the righteous man that he would be so showered with that blind wealth that, by the abundance of his riches, he would lend not only to Jews—or one, or two, or three other nations—but to many. How much money, then, would the righteous man possess, as a reward for his righteousness, according to the law, such that he might lend to many nations? B It is a consequence of such an interpretation to suppose that the righteous man never borrows; for it is written: "Thou shalt not borrow." Did that nation, therefore, remain for so many ages in the fear of God according to Moses, while evidently seeing that the legislator was lying—insofar as Celsus is concerned? For no one is ever recorded to have become so wealthy as to have lent to many nations. But it is not plausible that such men would continue to hear the law taught in the way Celsus imagined, and, clearly seeing that the promises in the law were false, continue to contend for the law.
And if anyone should bring forward the recorded sins of the people as an example that they despised the law—perhaps because they had concluded that it was lying—one must answer him that one should also read the times in which the whole people are recorded, after having done evil in the sight of the Lord, to have changed for the better and returned to the fear of God according to the law. But furthermore, if the law promised them dominion, C saying, "Thou shalt rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over thee," and nothing deeper is signified by these things, it is clear that the people would have condemned the promises of the law all the more. Celsus misinterprets certain words which signify that the whole earth would be filled through the Hebrew seed; this [corresponds to]
the historical sense, or, if I may so call it, to God who has become B present after the coming of Jesus, who rather bestows blessings. But as to what has been said in the promise to the Jews, that they should slay their enemies, it must be said that if anyone were to read and attend diligently to the words, he would find it impossible that the interpretation should be [taken] according to the letter. It suffices for the present to bring forward from the Psalms [to show] in what manner the righteous man is introduced saying, among other things: "In the morning I slew all the sinners of the earth, to root out from the city of the Lord all those who work iniquity" (Ps. C, 8). Consider, then, the written text and the disposition of the one who speaks: if, after having recounted noble deeds—which are set forth for anyone who wishes to read—he could have added that which is possible according to the letter, [namely] that he destroyed all the sinners of the earth at no other time of day than the morning, so that he left none of them alive; or whether he destroyed from Jerusalem every man whatsoever who was working iniquity. You would find many such things in the law, such as: "We did not leave behind of them anything living" (Deut. II, 34). C And Celsus also brings forward that it was predicted to them that if they did not obey the law, they would suffer the same things which they had inflicted upon their enemies. But before Celsus adds anything to these points, and uses what he considers to be contradictions to the law [drawn] from the teaching of Christ, we must speak concerning what has been said before. We say, then, that the law is twofold: one part is according to the letter, the other according to the spirit, as some before us have taught. And the [law] according to the letter is called by God himself—not so much by us—in one of the prophets, "statutes not good, and ordinances not good" (Ezech. XX, 25); but the [law] according to the spirit is called by the same prophet, on behalf of God, "statutes good, and ordinances good." For the prophet does not explicitly say contradictory things in the same place. And D Paul is in harmony with this, when he says that "the letter," which is equivalent to the [literal sense], "kills," but "the spirit," which is equivalent to the [sense] according to the spirit, "gives life" (II Cor. III, 6). Thus, it is possible to find in Paul something analogous to what might be thought to be contradictions according to the prophet. For just as Ezekiel says, in one place: "I gave them statutes not good, and ordinances not good, in which they shall not live" (Ezech. XX, 25); and in another place: "I gave them statutes good, and ordinances good, in which they shall live" (Ezech. XX, 11)—or at least what is equivalent to this—so also Paul, when he wishes to criticize the literal sense of the law, says: "If the ministration of death, written in letters on stones, came in glory, so that the children of Israel could not look upon the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which was being brought to naught; how shall not the ministration of the spirit be in glory?" (II Cor. III, 7-8). But where he admires and accepts the law, he calls it spiritual: "We know," he says, "that the law is spiritual" (Rom. VII, 14). He also approves it in this place: "Therefore the law"
is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Rom. VII, 12). If, then, the wording of the law promises wealth to the righteous, let Celsus, following the letter that kills, think that this blind wealth is meant in the promise; but we say that它 pertains to the wealth that sharpens the eyes of the mind, and by which one becomes rich in every word and in all knowledge. In this sense we command the rich of this age not to be high-minded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God, who provides all things abundantly for enjoyment, to do good, to become rich in good works, to be ready to distribute, to communicate (I Tim. VI, 17-18). For, as Solomon says, the wealth of true goods is the redemption of a man’s soul (Prov. XIII, 8). But poverty, contrary to these, is pernicious, on account of which the poor man does not sustain threats. And what we have answered concerning wealth, the same should be said concerning dominion, namely that it is that by which one righteous man is said to pursue a thousand, and two to put to flight ten thousand (Deut. XXXII, 30). Now, if wealth is understood in this way, see whether it is not a consequence of the promise of God that he who is rich in every word, in all knowledge, in all wisdom, and in every good work, should lend from those riches of the word, and wisdom, and knowledge to many nations; just as Paul lent to all the nations to which he came, from Jerusalem in a circuit even to Illyricum, filling the Gospel of Christ (Rom. XV, 19). And since by revelation divine mysteries were made known to him, his mind being illuminated by the divinity of the Word, he did not take a loan, nor did he have need of a man to teach him religion. Thus also, while it was written: "You shall rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over you" (Deut. XV, 6), by subjecting the Gentiles through the power of the word of the teaching of Jesus Christ, he ruled over them, and never for an hour yielded to men, as being more excellent than them. Thus also he was filling the earth.
If it must also be related concerning the killing of enemies and having power over all things, one must say that when he says, "In the morning I slew all the sinners of the earth, to destroy from the city of the Lord all who work iniquity" (Ps. C, 8), he takes "earth" figuratively for the flesh, the mind of which is enmity toward God (Rom. VIII, 7); and the city of God for his own soul, in which was the temple of God, holding a right opinion concerning God; wherefore it was an object of admiration to all who considered it. As soon, therefore, as the rays of the Sun of righteousness flooded his soul with light, as if fortified and strengthened by them, he was slaying all the mind of the flesh, which is designated by "the sinners of the earth," and was destroying from that city of God, which was in his
let them cut off from the city of his soul which is the Lord’s, all thoughts working iniquity and ideas hostile to the truth. Thus do the righteous slay all the capturing of the enemy and of those who come from wickedness, so that not even an infant, just beginning to sprout into evil, is left behind. We hear in this sense also the utterance in the one hundred and thirty-sixth Psalm, which reads: "Daughter of Babylon, you miserable one, blessed is he who will render back to you your retribution, which you paid back to us; blessed is he who will seize and dash your little ones against the rock" (Ps. CXXXVI, 8, 9). For the little ones of Babylon, which is interpreted as "confusion," are those thoughts just sprouting and rising in the soul that cause confusion, those born of wickedness; he who holds them, so as to dash their heads against the firmness and strength of the Word, dashes the little ones of Babylon against the rock, and is blessed for this. Let God, therefore, command that the things of wickedness be utterly slain, root and branch, teaching nothing contrary to what Jesus proclaimed; and in the eyes of those who are Jews in secret, let God effect the destruction of the enemies and of all who come from wickedness. And let it be such that those who do not obey the law and Word of God, having been made like to the enemy and having been corrupted by wickedness, should suffer those things which it is fitting for those to suffer who have departed from the words of God. It is clear, then, even from these things, how Jesus the Nazarene does not, as a man, legislate against what was said regarding wealth and those who perish on account of it (Matth. XIX, 23), regarding the saying that it is difficult for a rich man "to enter into the kingdom of God;" whether one takes "rich man" more simply as one distracted by wealth and hindered as if by thorns from bearing the fruits of the Word; or whether one takes it as he who is rich in false doctrines, concerning whom it is written in Proverbs: "A righteous poor man is better than a lying rich man" (Prov. XXVIII, 6). It is likely that from the passages, "Whoever wishes to be first among you, let him be the servant of all" (Matth. XX, 26, 27); and "The leaders of the Gentiles lord it over them;" and "Those who exercise authority over them are called benefactors" (Luc. XXII, 25), Celsus has taken it that Jesus forbade the love of rule; which, however, should not be thought to be contrary to: "You shall rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over you" (Deut. XV, 6), especially because of what we have set forth regarding that phrase.
Next, Celsus throws in remarks about wisdom, thinking that Jesus teaches that the wise man is not permitted to approach the Father. Let us say to him: to which wise man? For if he means this one, who has been made wise according to the so-called wisdom of this world, which is foolishness before God (I Cor. III, 19); then we also will say that the way to the Father is not open to such a wise man. But if one understands Christ as wisdom, since Christ is "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (I Cor. I, 24), to such a wise man we say that not only is the way to the Father open, but by much—
by far, we say, he who is adorned with the gift called the Word of wisdom, given through the Spirit, excels those who lack it. A Furthermore, we say that the pursuit of glory among men is forbidden not only by the teaching of Jesus (25), but also by the ancient Scripture. A certain prophet, indeed, invoking a curse upon himself if he were guilty of sins, lays down as equivalent to the greatest evil the glory of this life; he says thus: "O Lord my God, if I have done this, if there is iniquity in my hands, if I have rendered evil to those who render evil to me, I would surely fall empty from my enemies! Should the enemy pursue my soul and overtake it, and trample my life into the earth, may he lay my glory in the dust (26)!" Nor are the words, "Do not be anxious about what you shall eat or what you shall drink. B Observe the birds of the air, or observe the ravens, that they neither sow nor reap; and your heavenly Father feeds them. How much more value do you have than the birds? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field," and the following, contrary to the blessings in the Law, which teach that the righteous man who eats shall be satisfied; and to this statement of Solomon: "The righteous eats and fills (28) his soul, but the souls of the ungodly are in need." For one must see the food of the soul signified in the blessing according to the Law; by which not the composite man is filled, but the soul alone. From the Gospel, however, one must perhaps take something deeper, and perhaps also something simpler: that one ought not to be distraught by anxieties about food and clothing, but, practicing simplicity, be persuaded that provision is made by God, C if only one cares for the necessities. Celsus, then, not having set against the Gospel teachings the things from the Law that seem contrary, mentions also the, "to the one who has struck once, to offer [the other cheek] to be struck again." But we shall say that we know it has been said to those of old, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," but we have also read the, "But I say to you, to him who strikes you on the cheek, offer also the other" (29). But since Celsus, I believe, having been influenced by those who divide the Godhead according to the Gospel from the Godhead of the Law, proposes such things, one must say in reply to his argument that he has seen even the ancient writings: "To him who strikes you on the right cheek, offer the other also." For thus in the Lamentations of Jeremiah: It is good for a man when he has borne D
the yoke from his youth. He shall sit alone and keep silence, because he has taken it upon himself; he will give his cheek to the one who strikes him, and he will be filled with grievances. A The Gospel of God does not war against the God of the Law, nor even regarding the striking on the cheek; nor is either one lying, neither Moses nor Jesus; nor did the Father, in sending Jesus, forget what He had commanded Moses; nor did He, having condemned His own laws, repent and send a messenger to command the opposite. But if it is necessary to say even a few things concerning the different ways of life—the one which the Jews formerly practiced according to Moses, and the one which Christians now wish to perfect according to the teaching of Jesus—we shall say that neither was it suitable for the calling of the nations, while subject to the Romans, to live according to the Law of Moses as regards the letter, nor was it possible for the Jews of old to maintain their system of polity intact if, as a hypothesis, they were to obey the polity according to the Gospel. For Christians could not act according to the Law of Moses, by putting to death enemies or those who had done things B against the Law and were judged worthy of death by fire or stoning; at least, not even the Jews, even if they wished, are able to carry these things out as the Law commanded. Again, if you were to take away from the Jews of that time, who had their own system of government and their own land, the ability to go out against enemies, to wage war for their traditions, and to execute or punish in any way those who committed adultery or homicide, or who had done any of the things similar to these, there would be nothing left for them but to be destroyed altogether and at once, with enemies attacking the nation as if it had been rendered impotent by its own laws, and forbidden to defend itself against those enemies. And the Providence that gave the law of old, and now the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing for the things of the Jews still to prevail, brought down their city, and the temple, and the service of God at the temple by means of sacrifices and the prescribed rites. C Just as He took away those things, not wishing for them to be performed any longer, in the same way He increased the things of the Christians and day by day brought them to a multitude, and has already granted them boldness—although ten thousand obstacles arose against the teaching of Jesus being sown into the inhabited world. But since it was God who wished for the nations also to be benefited through the teaching of Jesus Christ, every human counsel against the Christians was brought down; for the more kings, and rulers of nations, and peoples everywhere humbled them, by that much more did they become numerous, and prevail greatly.
Next, Celsus, by setting forth as if they were asserted by us many things that are not even said by us concerning God—namely, that He is of a corporeal nature and possesses a body in human form—desires to refute things that have not been maintained by us, which it would be superfluous to set forth, or to attempt to refute. For if we were indeed saying what he claims we say concerning God, and he were standing against those very things, it would be necessary for us to set down his words, to establish our own position, and to dissolve his objections. But if he strings together things which he has heard from no one—or, even granting that he has heard them, he heard them from certain simple and unrefined persons who do not know the intent of the doctrine—there is no need for us to be anxious about matters that are not essential. For the Scriptures clearly declare God to be incorporeal; hence, "no man hath seen God at any time," and the "firstborn of every creature" is said to be the image of the invisible God, as if it were said, of the incorporeal God. B But we have already sufficiently discussed the matter of God in the preceding sections, examining how we understand the statement that "God is a Spirit," and that "they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
After his remarks on God, in which he slanders us, he asks us: Whither do we intend to depart, and what hope do we have? And as if we had already answered, he introduces our assertions as if they were thus: "Into another land, better than this one." To this he says: "Ancient men, divine men, have recorded a blessed life for blessed souls. Some have named it the Isles of the Blessed, others the Elysian Plain, so called from the deliverance of evils; just as Homer also says: 'But to the Elysian plain and the ends of the earth, the immortals will send thee,' where there is the most easy C life." Plato also, thinking the soul to be immortal, plainly called that region to which it is sent a "land," stating that it is something vast, and that we, who inhabit the space from the Phasis to the Pillars of Hercules, dwell in a small portion of it, like ants or frogs around a marsh, living around the sea; and that many others dwell elsewhere in many such places. For there are everywhere around the earth many hollows of all shapes and sizes, into which the water and the mist and the air have flowed together; but the earth itself lies pure in the pure heaven. Celsus therefore presumes that we have taken what we say regarding the other D land, which is better and far superior to this one, from certain ancient men whom he considers divine, and especially from Plato, who philosophized in the *Phaedo* about the earth that is pure and situated in the pure heaven; not perceiving that Moses, being much older even than the Greek writings, represents God as promising to those who observe His law a holy land, a good land, a spacious one, flowing with milk and honey. And this good land is not, as some suppose...
the good land which is mistakenly thought to be the lower Judaea, situated itself in the earth which was cursed from the beginning in the works of the transgression of Adam. For the text, "Cursed is the earth in your works; in sorrows you shall eat of it all the days of your life," has been spoken concerning the whole earth, A which every man who has died in Adam eats in sorrows—that is, in labors—and eats throughout all the days of his own life. And since this entire earth is cursed, it shall bring forth thorns and thistles all the days of the life of him who was cast out of paradise in Adam; and in the sweat of his face every man eats his own bread, until he returns to the earth from which he was taken. There is, therefore, a great deal to be said about everything pertaining to this passage, which could be set forth for the clarification of the words; but for the present we are satisfied with a little, wishing to release from distraction the one who supposes that what is said about the good land which God promises to the righteous is spoken concerning the land of Judaea. But since the entire earth belongs to the works of Adam and those who have died in him, it is clear that all its parts also partake of the curse, among which is the land of Judaea; so that it is impossible for the phrase "into a good and spacious land, into a land flowing with milk and honey" to apply to it, B unless Judaea and Jerusalem are shown to be, symbolically, a shadow of that pure, good, and spacious land situated in the pure heaven, in which is the heavenly Jerusalem. Concerning this, the Apostle, having been raised with Christ and seeking the things above, and having found a meaning that holds nothing of Jewish mythology, says: "But you have approached Mount Sion, and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and the myriads of angels, the general assembly." And so that one may be persuaded that we are not speaking contrary to the desire of the divine Spirit concerning the good and spacious land in Moses, let him pay attention to all the prophets, who teach the return to Jerusalem of those who have wandered and fallen away from it, and who are altogether being restored to the place and city called God's by Him who says, "His place is in holy peace," and who also says, "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised, in the city of our God, in His holy mountain, rooted in the exultation of the whole earth." It is sufficient for the present to set forth the words from the thirty-sixth Psalm, which are as follows concerning the land of the righteous: "But those who wait for the Lord, they shall inherit the earth"; and after a little: "But the meek shall inherit the earth and delight in the abundance of peace"; and after a little: "Those who bless Him shall inherit the earth"; and again: "The righteous shall inherit the earth, and dwell upon it forever and ever." Consider now whether
by this it is not indicated to those capable of hearing what is meant by such things in the same Psalm, that the earth is pure and is in a pure heaven: "Wait for the Lord, and keep His way, and He shall exalt you to inherit the land." A It seems to me that even the account regarding the precious stones, which are thought to be honored here and are said to possess a certain emanation from the stones in the better land, was taken by Plato from what is written in Isaiah concerning the city of God, about which it is written: "I will make your battlements of jasper, and your stones of crystal, and your perimeter of elect stones"; and again: "I will set your foundations in sapphire." Now, those who have interpreted the philosopher’s teachings more seriously give an allegorical explanation of the myth in Plato; but as for the prophecies, from which we conjecture Plato also derived his notions, B those who have lived in a way akin to the prophets and inspired by God, and have devoted their whole time to the examination of the Holy Scriptures, will present them to those who are fit recipients by virtue of their purity of life and their zeal for learning regarding divine things. But our purpose was to show that we did not learn what we believe about the holy land from the Greeks or from Plato; but that they, being younger not only than the most ancient Moses but also than most of the prophets, either have overheard some things hinted about such matters, or, having encountered the sacred Scriptures, have distorted them and said things of this kind about the better land. And Haggai clearly distinguishes the dry land from the earth, calling this place where we are "the dry." C For he speaks thus: "Yet once more I will shake the heaven, and the earth, and the dry land, and the sea." Just as he himself relegates the explanation of the myth in Plato’s *Phaedo* to the following words: "What he means by these things is not easy for everyone to discern, unless one were able to grasp what it is that he says, namely, that due to weakness and slowness we are unable to penetrate to the ultimate air; yet if nature were capable of enduring the contemplation, one would know what that is which is the true heaven and the true light." In the same way, we do not consider it to be part of our present project to explain the holy and good land and the city of God that is in it; we postpone this for our commentaries on the D prophets, since we have already spoken to the best of our ability about the city of God in our treatises on the forty-fifth and forty-seventh Psalms. Moreover, the most ancient writing of Moses and the prophets teaches that all things which are true have the same name as those which are in common use here, for instance, light.
and a heaven other than the firmament, and the sun of justice other than the sensible one. In a word, to distinguish them from sensible things, of which nothing is true, they say: "God, his works are true"; A distinguishing between the works of God and what are called the works of his hands, the latter being inferior. Therefore, finding fault with certain persons through Isaiah, he says: "They do not regard the works of the Lord, and they do not consider the works of his hands." [Isaiah v, 12.] And this is sufficient on this point.
Since the doctrine of the resurrection is vast and difficult to interpret, and requires a wise man—as much as any other doctrine does—and one further advanced, so as to set forth what is worthy of God and the nobility of the doctrine, teaching that what the Scriptures call the "tabernacle" of the soul possesses the principle of a seed, in which the just groan being burdened, not wishing to be unclothed but to be clothed upon; and since Celsus, not understanding this and having heard of it only from uninstructed persons who could not support it with a single argument, mocks what is said: it will be useful, in addition to what we have said above regarding this, to note this one thing in reply to his argument: that we do not say what we do about the resurrection because we have misunderstood the transmigration of souls into bodies, as Celsus thinks; but because we know that the soul, being by its own nature incorporeal and invisible, cannot exist in any corporeal place without needing a body appropriate to the nature of that place. B This body it sometimes carries after having put off a previous one, which was necessary but became superfluous for the following stage; at other times it is clothed upon something beyond what it previously had, needing a better garment to enter the purer, ethereal, and heavenly places. Thus, coming into this birth, it put off the covering useful for the place in the mother's womb, so long as it was within it; but it put on what was necessary for one destined to live upon the earth. Then again, since there is a certain tabernacle and terrestrial dwelling, in a way necessary for that tabernacle, the Scriptures say that the earthly dwelling of the tabernacle is to be dissolved, but that the tabernacle is to be clothed upon with a house not made by hands, eternal in the heavens. The men of God also say that the corruptible is to put on incorruption—which differs from the incorruptible—and the mortal is to put on immortality, which is distinct from the immortal. C For as wisdom relates to that which is wise, and justice to that which is just, and peace to that which is peaceful, so does incorruption relate to the incorruptible, and immortality to the immortal. Behold, then, to what the Word exhorts us when it speaks of assuming incorruption and immortality; these, when as garments the one who is clothed and encompassed by such vestments assumes, allow him neither to be corrupted nor to perish.
A And these things have been boldly stated by us for the sake of one who has not understood what we mean 52 by the resurrection, and who for this reason mocks and ridicules a teaching he does not know. Thinking that we, because we speak of knowing and seeing God, represent the arguments concerning the resurrection [in a certain way], he strings together for himself whatever he pleases and says such things as: "After they are refuted and convicted from every side, they return again, as if they had heard nothing, to the same question: 'How then shall we know and see God? And how shall we go to him?'" Let him know, therefore, whoever wishes, that even if we need a body for other purposes, in order to be in a corporeal place—and one of such a kind as is the nature of the corporeal place—and being in need of the body, we are clothed upon the tabernacle with the things previously mentioned; yet for the knowledge of God we have absolutely no need of a body. For that which knows God is not the eye of the body, but the mind, B which sees that which is according to the image of the Creator, and which, by the providence of God, has received [the capacity] to be able to know God. And that which sees God is a pure heart, from which no longer proceed evil thoughts, nor murders, nor adulteries, nor fornications, nor thefts, nor false testimonies, nor blasphemies, nor a wicked eye, nor any other of the things that are contrary to nature; on account of which it is said: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." But since our own power of choice is not sufficient for having a heart that is entirely pure, but we need God, who creates it as such; for this reason it is said by the one who prays knowledgeably: "Create in me a clean heart, O God." And we do not ask "How shall we go to him?" as if God were in a place; for God is superior to every place, and holds together everything whatsoever—and there is nothing that holds God. The command to go to God is not, therefore, given to us in a bodily sense; [nor is] "You shall walk after the Lord your God" [meant] in a bodily sense; nor does the Prophet, having cleaved to God, speak in his prayer [of a bodily thing]: "My soul has cleaved after Thee." C Celsus therefore falsely accuses us when he says that we expect to see God with the eyes of the body, and to hear his voice with ears 56, and to touch him with sensible hands. We know that the divine Scriptures mention eyes, and ears, and hands, which have the same name as the eyes of the body, but which are likewise distinct from them, and, what is more paradoxical than these, a more divine sense, and one different from that which is commonly named by the many. For when the Prophet says: "Open thou my eyes, and I shall behold wondrous things out of thy law"; or, "The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes"; or, "Enlighten my eyes, lest I sleep in death"; no one is so stupid as to [think that] these things [refer to the eyes of the body].
wonders of the divine law are to be discerned by the eyes of the body, or that the commandment of the Lord is to enlighten the eyes of the body, or that the sleep of death happens to the eyes of the body. Furthermore, when our Savior says, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear," even a person of ordinary intelligence understands that these things are said concerning divine matters. And when it is said that "the word of the Lord came by the hand of Jeremiah the prophet" or of any other, or "the law by the hand of Moses," or, "I sought God with my hands and was not deceived," there is no one so foolish that he does not understand that there are hands which are spoken of in a figurative sense, concerning which John also says: "Our hands have handled concerning the Word of life."
But if you wish to learn from the Holy Scriptures of a higher sense that is not bodily, hear Solomon saying in the Proverbs: "You will find a divine sense." We have no need, therefore, since we seek God in this way, to depart to the places where Celsus sends us—to the shrines of Trophonius, Amphiaraus, and Mopsus—where he says gods in human form are seen, and, as Celsus says, they are not deceivers but are manifest. For we know that these are demons, sated by the savors and blood of sacrifices and by the fumes from the offerings, and held fast in the prisons which they constructed for themselves through their own desire. These prisons the Greeks consider to be temples of the gods, but we know them to be the habitations of deceitful demons.
Following this, Celsus maliciously says of the aforementioned gods—who are, according to him, in human form—that one will see them not just once, fleetingly, like the one who deceived these people, but always conversing with those who wish it. And he seems through these words to have judged Jesus a phantom, who, after his resurrection from the dead, appeared to his disciples as if fleetingly before their eyes. But those whom he calls gods in human shape, he thinks are always conversing with those who wish it. C Yet how can a phantom, as he calls it, passing by to deceive the spectators, and after that appearance achieve such things, and convert the souls of such men, and produce in them the conviction that they must do everything in a way pleasing to God, as those who are to be judged? How does that which is called a phantom cast out demons and perform other wonders that are not to be despised—that which has not been allotted one specific site, like the gods in human form according to him, but pervades the whole world, gathering and drawing to itself by its own divinity those whom it finds inclined toward a good life? After this, in regard to what we have said as far as we were able, Celsus again says such things: "But they will ask again, how are they to know God..." [index: entries preserved]
for how are those who cannot grasp Him by sense to know God? Or what is it possible to understand without sense?" Then, responding to these points, he says: "This is not the voice of a man, nor of the soul, but of the flesh. Let them hear, however, if indeed they are capable of hearing anything at all, as they are a cowardly and body-loving race: if you shut off your sense, and look up, and, having turned away from the eye of the flesh, awaken the eye of the soul, only in this way will you see God. And if you seek a guide for this way, you must flee the impostors and charlatans A who commend idols; otherwise you will be altogether ridiculous, you who condemn other gods—those who are manifest—as idols, while you worship this one, a phantom more wretched than the phantoms themselves, and now not even a phantom, but truly a dead thing, and you seek a father resembling him."
And first, one must speak against his impersonation, in which he assigns to us arguments, as if spoken by us in defense of the resurrection of the flesh—for a virtue of him who makes a prosopopeia is to observe the purpose and character of the person being impersonated; but it is a vice when someone assigns words to the person speaking that do not befit him. And it is equally blameworthy to assign philosophy to barbarians, to the unlearned, to home-born slaves, or to those who have never heard the discourses of philosophers nor have ever spoken well—a philosophy which the impersonator learned, but which it was not likely the one being impersonated would know; and again, to assign to those who are supposed to be wise and who have known divine things, the B arguments of private affections C spoken by the unlearned and uttered out of ignorance. Whence, Homer is admired by many because he preserved the characters of his heroes as he conceived them from the beginning, such as those of Nestor, or Odysseus, or Diomedes, or Agamemnon, or Telemachus, or Penelope, or any of the others. But Euripides is ridiculed by Aristophanes D as someone who speaks at the wrong time, because he frequently assigned the arguments of doctrines, which he had learned from Anaxagoras or some other of the wise men, to barbarian women or servants. If then such is the virtue in impersonation, and such the vice, how could one not reasonably ridicule Celsus for assigning to Christians things that are not said by Christians? For if he fashioned the speeches of unlearned men, whence would such men have learned to distinguish sense from intellect, and sensible things from those that belong to the understanding, and to dogmatize in a way similar to those who abolish intelligible natures, C arguing according to the Stoics, that things grasped are grasped by sense, and that all comprehension D...
depends upon the senses. But if he is inventing the discourses of those who philosophize and who diligently examine the doctrines of Christ to the extent of their ability, he has not produced things that are consistent even with them. For no one who has learned that God is invisible and that there are certain invisible—that is, intelligible—works of His would say, as if defending the resurrection: "How will they know God if they cannot grasp Him by sense?" or "What is possible to learn without sense?" And it is written not only in books that are withdrawn and read only by the few and the inquisitive, but in the more popular ones, that "the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." From which it is possible to know that, even if men in this life must begin from the senses and from sensible things, intending to ascend to the nature of intelligible things, yet one must not remain in the sensible things, nor would they say that it is impossible to learn the intelligible things without sense; and using the question, "Who is able to learn without sense?" they would refute that it is not reasonably imputed by Celsus that this is "the voice not of a man, nor of a soul, but of flesh." Therefore, saying that the God of all is mind, or beyond mind and being—simple, invisible, and incorporeal—we would not say that God is grasped by anything other than that which has been made according to the image of that mind; now indeed, to use the word of Paul, "through a glass and in a riddle," but then "face to face." And if I say "face," let no one slander the mind signified by the word because of it, but let him learn from the passage, "with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and are changed into the same image from glory to glory," that a sensible face is not to be understood in such matters, but that it is understood metaphorically, just as the eyes, and ears, and as many things as we have shown above to have the same name as the members of the body. And thus a man—that is, a soul using a body, called the "inner man," and sometimes "soul"—will not answer what Celsus wrote, but what the man of God himself teaches. Nor would a Christian use the voice of the flesh, having learned to mortify the deeds of the body by the Spirit, and to "always bear about in the body the dying of Jesus," and to "mortify the members which are upon the earth"; and knowing what is meant by the words, "My spirit shall not remain in these men forever, for they are flesh," and this: "He who is
in the flesh cannot please God," he does everything that he might not be in the flesh any longer, but in the spirit alone. Let us see also to whom he calls us, so that we might hear from him in what manner we shall know God; concerning which he thinks that no Christian is able to understand the things said by him; for he says: "Yet, however, let them hear, if they are able to understand anything." What, then, the philosopher wishes us to hear from him must be considered. He ought to teach us, yet he rails; and he ought to show goodwill toward his listeners in the introduction of his discourse, yet he calls them a "cowardly race" who, so that they might not deny Christianity even by a word, struggle firmly unto death, ready to undergo every kind of punishment A and death. He also calls us a "body-loving race," although we say: "Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, but now we know Him no longer," and we lay aside the body for the sake of piety more readily than a philosopher would remove his garment. He speaks to us, therefore, saying that only when you have closed your senses and looked upward with your mind, and, having turned away from the eye of the flesh, you rouse the eye of the soul, shall you see God; and because he drew that double kind of eyes from the Greeks, he thinks the idea had not previously occurred to our authors. It must be answered to him that Moses, when describing the creation of the world, introduces man before his sin as both seeing and not seeing; seeing, indeed, where it is said concerning the woman: "The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and pleasant to the eyes, and beautiful to behold"; but not seeing, truly, not only where the serpent says to the woman, B as if they had been blinded: "For God knows that on whatever day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened"; but also when it is said: "They ate, and the eyes of both were opened." The eyes of the body were therefore opened, which they had kept closed to good effect, so that they might not be distracted and prevented from seeing with the eye of the soul; but those eyes of the soul which they had hitherto kept seeing, and delighted in the contemplation of God and His paradise, these, in my judgment at least, they closed because of sin. Whence also our Savior, knowing this twofold species of eyes in us, says: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see might see, and those who see might C become blind," indicating by those who do not see the eyes of the soul, which His doctrine makes clear-sighted; and by those who see, he signifies the eyes of the senses, which that same doctrine blinds, so that the soul may contemplate without any distraction the things which it ought. Whoever, therefore, is a true Christian, the eye of his soul is raised up, while that of the body is closed; and in proportion as the better eye is raised,
and the eyes of sense are closed, each one understands and contemplates God who is over all, and His Son, who is the Word and Wisdom, and the rest. B Next to the points examined, Celsus directs his speech toward all Christians—a speech which, if he wished, he ought to have directed to those who confess themselves to be entirely foreign to the teaching of Jesus. For those impostors and conjurers who commend idols are the Ophites—from whom, as we have said above, Christ is entirely rejected—or any others who hold opinions similar to theirs. Those are they who miserably learn by rote the names of the janitors. In vain, therefore, does he say against the Christians: "If you seek a leader of this way, you must flee those impostors and conjurers who commend idols." And, not knowing that such men, as conjurers, no less than Celsus, speak ill with him of Jesus and of all the piety associated with Him, he says: C "Otherwise you would be altogether ridiculous, you who curse other gods, who are manifest, as being idols, while you worship one who is truly more wretched than the idols themselves, and is not even an idol anymore, but a dead man in very truth, and you seek a Father like to him." That it was unknown to him what Christians say, and what those who have fashioned myths of this kind say, and that he said these things—which do not apply to us—because he thought that we were as much subject as they to the same accusations, is clear from his words: "That deceit, those admirable counselors, and those demoniacal words, directed D toward the lion, and the amphibious creature, and the ass-formed one, and the others, and those divine janitors, whose names you miserably learn by rote—those are the reasons why you are wretchedly bedeviled, and are crucified." And indeed he does not know that no one of those who imagine that the lion-formed, and the ass-formed, and the amphibious ones are the janitors of the way to heaven, defends until death what he thinks he has found to be the truth. But that which is done by us through, so to speak, a great passion of piety, when we, for the sake of the truth, surrender ourselves to every kind of death...
and to being crucified, he attributes to those who suffer nothing of the kind. But to us, who are crucified for the sake of piety, he objects with their fables about the lion-formed being, the amphibious one, and the rest. Therefore, it is not because of Celsus that we avoid the doctrine concerning the lion-formed being and the others; for we did not receive any such thing from the beginning. Rather, following the teaching of Jesus, we say things contrary to them, not agreeing that Michael—or any other of those previously recorded—is of such a form.
As to his claim that we should not be at a loss for ancient leaders and sacred men, we must consider this. He refers us to poets whom he calls inspired, and to wise men and philosophers, without setting down their names. Having promised to show us leaders, he speaks indefinitely of inspired poets, wise men, and philosophers. If he had set down the names of each of these, it would have seemed reasonable for us to struggle to show that he is giving us guides who are blind to the truth so that we might stumble, or if not entirely blind, that they are at least mistaken concerning many dogmas of the truth. Whether he wishes Orpheus to be an inspired poet, or Parmenides, or Empedocles, or Homer himself, or even Hesiod, let him who wishes show how those who use such guides will travel better and have been helped in the matters of life compared to those who, because of the teaching of Jesus Christ, have left behind all images and shrines, and indeed every Jewish superstition, and gaze only through the Word of God at the Father of the Word, God.
And who are these wise men or philosophers from whom Celsus wishes us to hear many and divine things, leaving behind Moses, the servant of God, and the prophets of the Creator of all, who have uttered truly divine things, and Him who shone upon the race of men and announced the way of piety, and who, as far as it depended on Him, left no one without a taste of His own mysteries—but because of His surpassing philanthropy, while He had it in Him to give theology to those who were more understanding, capable of lifting up the soul from the things of this world, He nonetheless also accommodated Himself to the weaker dispositions of common men and simpler women, and slaves, and in a word, to all who were helped by none other than Jesus alone to live as well as possible according to the dogmas they were able to grasp about God
A he refers us back to Plato, setting forth his words from the *Timaeus* which run as follows: "To find the maker and father of this all is a task, and having found him, to declare him to all is impossible." He then adds to these words, saying: "See how the way of truth is sought by men of God-like understanding," and how Plato knew that it is impossible for all to walk by this way. "Since, however, for this reason it has been devised by wise men, that we might obtain some notion of the unnameable and first, which through either composition with other things, or analysis from them, or analogy, might represent him—I wishing to teach what is otherwise ineffable—I would wonder if you would be able to follow, being utterly bound to the flesh and seeing nothing pure." Plato brings forward the passage before us in a high-minded manner and not one to be despised. But see whether the divine Word does not introduce the One who was in the beginning with God, the Word being God, B becoming flesh, with greater concern for humanity, so that the word might be able to reach all men, even if Plato says that it is impossible for one who has found him to declare him to all.
Plato, then, may say that it is a task to find the maker and father of this all, signifying that it is impossible for human nature to find God according to his worth—or if not according to his worth, at least to a greater degree than the many. (This, if it were true, and if God had been truly found by Plato or by any of the Greeks, they would not have worshipped anything else, nor called anything else God, nor offered worship, either by abandoning this one or by associating with him C things that cannot be associated with so great a God.) We, however, declare that human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any way whatsoever, and to find him correctly, unless it is helped by the One who is sought; for he is found by those who admit, after they have done what is in their power, that they are in need of him, and he makes himself manifest to those to whom he judges it to be reasonable to be seen, insofar as it is possible for God to be known by man and for a human soul, while still in the body, to know God.
But also, in saying that it is impossible to declare the maker and father of all to all men, Plato does not say that he is ineffable and unnameable, but that, being expressible in words, it is possible for him to be spoken of. D Then, as if he had forgotten the words of Plato that he had set forth, Celsus says that God is unnameable to these men: "Since, however, for this reason it has been devised by wise men, that we might obtain some notion of the unnameable and first..."
A principle, we say that not alone is God ineffable, but also other things that are after Him. These things Paul endeavored to signify when he said, 'I heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter,' [Cor. XII, 4.] using 'I heard' instead of 'I understood,' analogous to that saying, 'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' [Matth. XI, 15.] We say, moreover, that to see the Maker and Father of the universe is a difficult task. Yet He is seen, not only according to the saying, 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,' [Matth. V, 8.] but also according to that which is said by the image of the invisible God: 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father that sent me.' [Joan. XIV, 9.] For in these words, no one possessed of a sound mind would say that Jesus, by referring to his own perceptible body that was visible to men, said, 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father who sent me'; otherwise, those who were crying, 'Crucify, crucify him,' [Joan. XIX, 6.] and Pilate also, who had received power over his human nature, would have seen God the Father, which is absurd. That the saying, 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father who sent me,' is not to be referred to the commoner interpretation, is clear from what was said to Philip: 'Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip?' [Joan. XIV, 9.] which was said to him after he had requested and said: 'Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.' [Joan. XIV, 8.] Whoever, therefore, understands how one ought to think concerning the only-begotten God, the Son of God, the firstborn of every creature, [Coloss. I, 15.] inasmuch as the Word was made flesh, [Joan. I, 14.] will see how one, having beheld the image of the invisible God, will know the Father and Maker of this whole universe. Celsus therefore supposes that God is known either by composition toward other things, analogous to the composition called by the geometers, or by analysis from other things, or also by analogy B analogous to the analogy in use among the same, and that thus the entry to the good may perhaps be reached by one capable of such things. But the Word of God, when He says, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him,' [Matth. XI, 27.] declares that God is known by a certain divine grace, which does not arise in the soul without God, but with a certain sort of inspiration. For it is probable that the knowledge of God is greater than human nature—which is why there are so many errors regarding God among humans—but by the goodness and love of God toward men, and by a miraculous and more divine grace, the knowledge of God reaches those who are caught beforehand by the foreknowledge of God because they will live lives worthy of Him who is known, in no way corrupting their piety toward Him, neither being led away to death by those who are ignorant of what piety is and who invent anything at all to be piety rather than what piety is, nor becoming subjects of the greatest ridicule. Perceiving this, I think, God also [regards] the arrogance...
[GREEK COLUMN] [LATIN COLUMN] πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ὑπεροψίαν τῶν μεγάλα μὲν φρονούντων ἐπὶ τῷ ἐγνωκέναι τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας τὰ θεῖα μεμαθηκέναι, παραπλησίως δὲ τοῖς ἀπαιδευτοτάτοις ἐπὶ τὰ ἀγάλματα, καὶ τοὺς νεὼς αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ θρυλλούμενα μυστήρια ἄγοντας, ἐξελέξατο τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου, τοὺς ἐν Χριστιανοῖς ἁπλουστάτους, καὶ πολλῶν φιλοσόφων μετριώτερον καὶ καθαρώτερον βιοῦντας· ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τοὺς σοφούς, οὐκ αἰδουμένους ἐν τῷ τοῖς ἀψύχοις προσομιλεῖν ὡς θεοῖς ἢ θεῶν εἰκόσι. Τίς γὰρ νοῦν ἔχων οὐ καταγελάσεται τοῦ μετὰ τοὺς τηλικούτους καὶ τοσούτους ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ περὶ Θεοῦ ἢ θεῶν λόγους, ἐνορῶντος τοῖς ἀγάλμασι, καὶ ἤτοι αὐτοῖς ἀναπέμποντος τὴν εὐχὴν, ἢ διὰ τῆς τούτων ὄψεως ἐφ᾽ ἃ φαντάζεται δεῖν ἀναβαίνειν ἀπὸ τοῦ βλεπομένου καὶ συμβόλου ὄντος, ἀναφέροντός τε ἐπὶ τὸν νοούμενον; Χριστιανὸς δὲ, καὶ ὁ ἰδιώτης, πάντα μὲν τόπον τοῦ κόσμου πέπεισται εἶναι μέρος τοῦ ὅλου, ναοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὄντος τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου· ἐν παντὶ δὲ τόπῳ εὐχόμενος, μύσας τοὺς τῆς αἰσθήσεως ὀφθαλμοὺς, καὶ ἐγείρας τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς, ὑπεραναβαίνει τὸν ὅλον κόσμον. Καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν ἁψίδα ἴσταται τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν ὑπερουράνιον γενόμενος τῇ διανοίᾳ τόπον, ὁδηγούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ Πνεύματος, καὶ ὥσπερεὶ ἔξω τοῦ κόσμου τυγχάνων, ἀναπέμπει οὐ περὶ τῶν τυχόντων τὴν εὐχὴν τῷ Θεῷ· ἔμαθε γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μηδὲν μικρὸν, τουτέστιν αἰσθητόν, ζητεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ μεγάλα καὶ ἀληθῶς θεῖα, ὅσα συμβάλλεται διδόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, πρὸς τὸ ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Λόγου ὄντος Θεοῦ μακαριότητα. Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ ἃ φησιν ἡμᾶς διδάξειν, εἰ ἄρα αὐτοῖς ἀκολουθῆσαι δυνησόμεθα, ἐν οἷς λέγει ἡμᾶς παντελῶς ἐνδεδέσθαι τῇ σαρκὶ, οὓς ἐὰν βιῶμεν ὀρθῶς, καὶ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦ λόγον, ἀκούοντας τὸ, Ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πνεύματι, εἴπερ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. Φησὶ δ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ μηδὲν καθαρὸν βλέπειν, τοὺς πειρωμένους μηδὲ μέχρι τῶν λογισμῶν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων τῆς κακίας μολύνεσθαι, καὶ ἐν τῇ εὐχῇ λέγοντας, Καρδίαν καθαρὰν κτίσον ἐν ἐμοὶ, ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ πνεῦμα εὐθὲς ἐγκαίνισον ἐν τοῖς ἐγκάτοις μου· ἵνα τῇ μόνη πεφυκυία βλέπειν Θεὸν καρδίᾳ καθαρᾷ θεασώμεθα αὐτόν. Ἃ δὲ λέγει, τοιαῦτά ἐστιν· A πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ὑπεροψίαν τῶν μεγάλα μὲν φρονούντων ἐπὶ τῷ ἐγνωκέναι τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας τὰ θεῖα μεμαθηκέναι, παραπλησίως δὲ τοῖς ἀπαιδευτοτάτοις ἐπὶ τὰ ἀγάλματα, καὶ τοὺς ναοὺς αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ θρυλλούμενα μυστήρια ἄγοντας, ἐξελέξατο τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου, τοὺς ἐν Χριστιανοῖς ἁπλουστάτους, καὶ πολλῶν φιλοσόφων μετριώτερον καὶ καθαρώτερον βιοῦντας· ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τοὺς σοφούς, οὐκ αἰδουμένους ἐν τῷ τοῖς ἀψύχοις προσομιλεῖν ὡς θεοῖς ἢ θεῶν εἰκόσι. Τίς γὰρ νοῦν ἔχων οὐ καταγελάσεται τοῦ μετὰ τοὺς τηλικούτους καὶ τοσούτους ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ περὶ Θεοῦ ἢ θεῶν λόγους, ἐνορῶντος τοῖς ἀγάλμασι, καὶ ἤτοι αὐτοῖς ἀναπέμποντος τὴν εὐχὴν, ἢ διὰ τῆς τούτων ὄψεως ἐφ᾽ ἃ φαντάζεται δεῖν ἀναβαίνειν ἀπὸ τοῦ βλεπομένου καὶ συμβόλου ὄντος, ἀναφέροντός τε ἐπὶ τὸν νοούμενον; Χριστιανὸς δὲ, καὶ ὁ ἰδιώτης, πάντα μὲν τόπον τοῦ κόσμου πέπεισται εἶναι μέρος τοῦ ὅλου, ναοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὄντος τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου· ἐν παντὶ δὲ τόπῳ εὐχόμενος, μύσας τοὺς τῆς αἰσθήσεως ὀφθαλμοὺς, καὶ ἐγείρας τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς, ὑπεραναβαίνει τὸν ὅλον κόσμον. Καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν ἁψίδα ἴσταται τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν ὑπερουράνιον γενόμενος τῇ διανοίᾳ τόπον, ὁδηγούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ Πνεύματος, καὶ ὥσπερεὶ ἔξω τοῦ κόσμου τυγχάνων, ἀναπέμπει οὐ περὶ τῶν τυχόντων τὴν εὐχὴν τῷ Θεῷ· ἔμαθε γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μηδὲν μικρὸν, τουτέστιν αἰσθητόν, ζητεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ μεγάλα καὶ ἀληθῶς θεῖα, ὅσα συμβάλλεται διδόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, πρὸς τὸ ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Λόγου ὄντος Θεοῦ μακαριότητα. B Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ ἃ φησιν ἡμᾶς διδάξειν, εἰ ἄρα αὐτοῖς ἀκολουθῆσαι δυνησόμεθα, ἐν οἷς λέγει ἡμᾶς παντελῶς ἐνδεδέσθαι τῇ σαρκὶ, οὓς ἐὰν βιῶμεν ὀρθῶς, καὶ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦ λόγον, ἀκούοντας τὸ, Ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πνεύματι, εἴπερ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. Φησὶ δ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ μηδὲν καθαρὸν βλέπειν, τοὺς πειρωμένους μηδὲ μέχρι τῶν λογισμῶν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων τῆς κακίας μολύνεσθαι, καὶ ἐν τῇ εὐχῇ λέγοντας, Καρδίαν καθαρὰν κτίσον ἐν ἐμοὶ, ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ πνεῦμα εὐθὲς ἐγκαίνισον ἐν τοῖς ἐγκάτοις μου· ἵνα τῇ μόνη πεφυκυία βλέπειν Θεὸν καρδίᾳ καθαρᾷ θεασώμεθα αὐτόν. Ἃ δὲ λέγει, τοιαῦτά ἐστιν·
ἐστιν· A νοητὸν, ὁρατόν· μετ' οὐσίας μὲν ἀλήθεια συνείπεται, μετὰ δὲ γενέσεως πλάνη· περὶ ἀλήθειαν μὲν οὖν ἐπιστήμη, περὶ δὲ θάτερον δόξα· καὶ τοῦ μέν ἐστι νόησις, ὁρατοῦ δὲ ὄψις. Γινώσκει δὲ νοητὸν μὲν νοῦς, ὁρατὸν δὲ ὀφθαλμός. Ὅπερ οὖν ἐν τοῖς ὁρατοῖς ἥλιος, οὔτ' ὀφθαλμὸς ὢν οὔτ' ὄψις, ἀλλ' ὀφθαλμῷ τε τοῦ ὁρᾷν αἴτιος, καὶ ὄψει τοῦ δι' αὐτὸν συνίστασθαι, καὶ ὁρατοῖς τοῦ ὁρᾶσθαι, πᾶσιν αἰσθητοῖς τοῦ γίγνεσθαι, καὶ μὴ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ τοῦ βλέπεσθαι· τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς ἐκεῖνος, ὅσπερ οὔτε νοῦς, οὔτε νόησις, οὔτ' ἐπιστήμη, ἀλλὰ τῷ τε τοῦ νοεῖν αἴτιος, καὶ νοήσει τοῦ δι' αὐτὸν εἶναι, καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ τοῦ δι' αὐτὸν γιγνώσκειν, καὶ νοητοῖς ἅπασι, καὶ αὐτῇ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ αὐτῇ οὐσίᾳ, τοῦ εἶναι· πάντων ἐπέκεινα ὤν, ἀῤῥήτῳ τινὶ δυνάμει νοητός. Ταῦτ' εἴρηται μὲν ἀνθρώποις νοῦν ἔχουσιν· εἰ δέ τι αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμεῖς συνίετε, εὖ ὑμῖν ἔχει. B Καὶ πνεῦμα, εἴ τι οἴεσθε κατιὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ προαγγέλλειν τὰ θεῖα, τοῦτ' ἂν εἴη τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ταῦτα κηρύττον, οὗ δὴ πλησθέντες ἄνδρες παλαιοὶ πολλὰ κἀγαθὰ ἀνήγγειλαν· ὧν εἰ μὴ δύνασθε ἐπαίειν, σιωπᾶτε, καὶ τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀμαθίαν ἐγκαλύπτετε, καὶ μὴ λέγετε τυφλώττειν τοὺς βλέποντας, καὶ χωλοὺς εἶναι τοὺς τρέχοντας, αὐτοὶ πάντη τὰς ψυχὰς ἀποκεχωλευμένοι καὶ ἠκρωτηριασμένοι, καὶ τῷ σώματι ζῶντες, τουτέστι τῷ νεκρῷ.
Πρὸς ταῦτα δ' ἡμεῖς φήσομεν οἱ μελετήσαντες μηδενὶ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι τῶν καλῶς λεγομένων, καὶ οἱ ἔξω τῆς πίστεως λέγωσι καλῶς, μὴ προσφιλονεικεῖν· ὅτι οἱ μὲν διαλοιδορούμενοι τοῖς κατὰ δύναμιν εἰς τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν εὐσεβεῖν θέλουσιν, ἀποδεχομένων ἰδιωτῶν τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν πίστιν, καὶ συνετωτέρων τὴν μετὰ λόγου εἰς αὐτὸν εὐσέβειαν, μετ' εὐχαριστίας ἀναπεμπόντων εὐχὰς τῷ Δημιουργῷ τοῦ παντὸς, καὶ ἀναπεμπόντων αὐτὰς, ὡς δι' ἀρχιερέως τοῦ τὴν εἰλικρινῆ θεοσέβειαν ἀνθρώποις παραστήσαντος· C καὶ καλοῦντες αὐτοὺς κεχωλευμένους τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ ἠκρωτηριασμένους, λέγοντες δὲ καὶ σώματι ζῶντας τῷ νεκρῷ τοὺς μελετῶντας ἀπὸ διαθέσεως λέγειν τὸν· Ἐν σαρκὶ γὰρ ζῶντες οὐ κατὰ σάρκα στρατευόμεθα· τὰ γὰρ ὅπλα τῆς στρατείας ἡμῶν οὐ σαρκικά, ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ· ὁράτωσαν, μὴ κατ' αὐτὸ τοῦτο λέγειν κακῶς ἀνθρώπους εὐχομένους εἶναι Θεοῦ, τὰς ψυχὰς ἑαυτῶν χωλὰς κατασκευάζωσι, καὶ τὸν ἔσω ἑαυτῶν ἄνθρωπον ἀκρωτηριάζωσιν, ἀποκόπτοντες αὐτοὺς, διὰ τῶν εἰς ἑτέρους δυσφημιῶν, τοὺς καλῶς βιοῦν ἐθέλοντας, τὸ ἐπιεικὲς καὶ τὸ εὐσταθὲς ἐνεσπαρμένα φυσικῶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Δημιουργοῦ τῇ λογικῇ φύσει. Οἱ δὲ πρὸς ἑτέρους ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἔχει, D ἀποκόπτοντες αὐτοὺς, ἀπολύοντες αὐτοῦ οἱ τὸ ἐπιεικές. Οἱ δὲ πρὸς ἑτέρους ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἔχει, ἀποκόπτοντες αὐτοὺς, ἀπὸ τοῦ Δημιουργοῦ τὸ ἐπιεικὲς καὶ τὸ εὐσταθὲς ἐνεσπαρμένα τῇ λογικῇ φύσει, οἱ δὲ πρὸς ἑτέρους ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἔχει. Οἱ δὲ πρὸς ἑτέρους ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἔχει, ἀποκόπτοντες αὐτους. Οἱ δὲ πρὸς ἑτέρους ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἔχει. Ὃ δὲ λέγει ἐστὶν ὅτι οἱ πρὸς ἑτέρους ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἔχει, ἀποκόπτοντες αὐτοὺς, ἀποκόπτοντες αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐπιεικὲς τὸ ἐνεσπαρμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ Δημιουργοῦ τῇ λογικῇ φύσει, οἱ δὲ ἑτέρων ὄντες, ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἔχει ἡ ἀπόκρισις πρὸς τοὺς λοιδοροῦντας. Ὡς δὲ ἑτέρων ὄντων, πρὸς ταῦτα καὶ ἡμεῖς φήσομεν οἱ μελετήσαντες μηδενὶ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι τῶν καλῶς λεγομένων, καὶ οἱ ἔξω τῆς πίστεως λέγωσι καλῶς, μὴ προσφιλονεικεῖν, καὶ ὅτι οἱ μὲν διαλοιδορούμενοι τοῖς κατὰ δύναμιν εἰς τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν εὐσεβεῖν θέλουσιν, καὶ ὅτι μελλούσης τῆς φύσεως τῆς λογικῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Δημιουργοῦ ἐσπαρμένης, οὐ δεῖ κατακρίνειν τοὺς λοιδοροῦντας.
λοιδοροῦντας. A And being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat: [1 Cor. IV, 12, 13] these are they who have strengthened the foundations of their soul, and who cleanse and prepare the whole soul; not that they might merely distinguish in words the substance from generation, and the intelligible from the visible, and knit the truth to substance, and avoid by every means the error joined to generation; contemplating, as they have learned, not the things of generation—which are things seen, and therefore temporal—but the superior things; whether one desires to call these "substance," or, because they are intelligible, "invisible," or because their nature is outside the reach of sense, "things not seen." For the disciples of Jesus look upon the things of generation in such a way that they use them, as it were, as a stepping stone toward the understanding of the nature of intelligible things; for "The invisible things of God from the creation of the world," that is, the intelligible things, "being understood by the things that are made, are seen." [Rom. I, 20] And they do not stop, having ascended from the creatures of the world, in the invisible things B of God; but having exercised themselves sufficiently in these, and understanding them, they ascend to the eternal power of God and, in a word, to his divinity; knowing that the philanthropic God has manifested the truth and that which is knowable of himself not only to those who are consecrated to him, but also to some who were outside a pure piety and devotion to him. But some of those who, by the providence of God, have risen to the knowledge of such things, seeing things unworthy of the knowledge, act impiously and "hold the truth in unrighteousness," [Rom. I, 18] and no longer have any room for apology before God regarding the knowledge of such things. At any rate, those who have grasped what originates with Celsus, and who profess to philosophize according to these doctrines, are witnessed to by the divine Word: that knowing God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks, "but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart" [Rom. I, 21] was darkened after such a light of the knowledge of the things which God had revealed to them. It is at any rate possible to see in what way those who claim to be wise exhibit proofs of great folly, when, after such great discourses in their schools concerning God and the intelligible things, they "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." [Rom. I, 23] Therefore, having been abandoned by Providence—as they have not lived in a manner worthy of the things manifested to them by God—they are left to wallow in the "desires" of their hearts "unto uncleanness," and their bodies are disgraced in indecencies and intemperance, "for they changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator." [Rom. I, 24, 25] But those who are despised by them on account of their simplicity, for others toward others.
whom they use terms like "fools" and "base slaves," these people—as soon as they have believed in God and accepted the teaching of Jesus—depart so far from licentiousness, A impurity, and every kind of shameful conduct in sexual matters, that many of them even prove themselves to be pure in every respect, in the manner of perfect priests, who abstain entirely from all sexual intercourse. Among the Athenians, there is indeed a *hierophant*, who—since he is not even deemed capable of controlling his male appetites and holding them in check at his own will—is rendered chaste by hemlock, and is considered pure for the sake of the religious worship established among the Athenians. But among the Christians, one may see men who do not need hemlock to serve the Divine purely; for the Word of God suffices them instead of hemlock, so that, having driven every desire from their mind, they serve the Divine with prayers.
And among those other beings who are considered gods, there are virgins—and very few at that, B whether they are guarded by men or not (for it is not the point now to examine this)—who *seem* to persevere in the purity required by the honor due to the divine; but among the Christians, it is not for the sake of human honors, nor for monetary rewards, nor for vainglory that they pursue perfect virginity. And "as they approved to have God in their knowledge," they are kept by God in a sound mind, "filled with all righteousness and goodness" in doing the things that are meet. These things, then, have been spoken by me, not to contend against what has been well understood by the Greeks, nor to accuse sound doctrines, but to demonstrate that these things—and even greater and more divine things than these—have been spoken by divine men, C the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus. These are examined by those who desire to live as Christians more perfectly, and who know that "the mouth of the righteous will meditate on wisdom, and his tongue will speak judgment; the law of his God is in his heart." But even among those who, whether through great ignorance or simplicity or the lack of those to urge them toward rational piety, do not have these things clearly manifested, they still believe in the God who is over all, and in His only-begotten Son, the Word and God; among them one might find a gravity, integrity, and guilelessness of character, and a simplicity—often better D than that of those who claim to be wise, but who, having not attained such things, wallow with boys in what is forbidden, males working in males that which is shameful.
A Now, he did not explain how there is error connected with generation, nor did he set forth what he intended, so that we might understand it by comparing his ideas with ours. But the prophets, hinting at what is wise regarding those things that arise from generation, say that a sin offering is brought because of them, and for those recently born B as not being pure from sin. They speak also of that which is said: "In iniquities I was conceived, and in sins my mother conceived me." Moreover, they declare that sinners are alienated from the womb, stating also—a paradoxical thought—"They went astray from the womb, they spoke lies." So thoroughly do the wise men among us disparage the entire nature of perceptible things, that at one time they call bodies "vanity," as in the passage: "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope"; C at another time they call them "vanity of vanities," as the Ecclesiastes said: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Who has so disparaged the life of the human soul here as the one who said: "Nevertheless, all things are vanity, every man living"? For he did not remain in doubt regarding the difference between the life of the soul here and that outside of these present things; nor did he say: "Who knows whether to live is to die, and to die is to live?" but he is confident in speaking the truth when he says: "Our soul has been humbled to the dust"; and, "You have brought me into the dust of death." D To which corresponds also: "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" It has been said also: "Who shall transform the body of our humiliation." It is a prophet, too, who said: "You have humbled us in a place of affliction"; calling the earthly region the "place of affliction," to which Adam (which is to say, man) came after being cast out of paradise because of his wickedness. And consider also the one who says that "we see now through a mirror and in a riddle, but then face to face," and furthermore: "While we are at home in the body, we are away from the Lord; therefore we are well-pleased to be away from the body and to be at home with the Lord." See what great insights he had regarding the different life of souls. And why must I, at greater length, contrast my words with Celsus’s statement, since these things were said by us long before, when it is also clear from what has been said what our intention is? To these points he adds, as it were: "And if you think any spirit comes down from God to announce divine things, this would be the spirit that..."
A proclaims, which ancient men, having been filled with it, proclaimed many good and beautiful things." But he did not know the difference between what we have accurately understood and those who say that "Your incorruptible spirit is in all things, for which reason God reproves those who fall short, little by little," and who say, among other things, the words: "Receive the Holy Spirit," which signifies a different quantity of the given Spirit than that which is denoted by the passage: "You shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days after this." But it is a task, once these things have been diligently considered, to see the difference between those who, at wide intervals, attain the apprehension of truth and a slight conception of God, and those who are more fully possessed by God, and who always stand with God, and are through everything led by the divine Spirit. If this had been examined and understood by Celsus, he would not have blamed our ignorance, nor would he have ordered us not to call blind those who, in the material arts of men—such as those involving statues—think that they are demonstrating piety. For no one who has the eyes of the soul open worships the Divine in any other way than the one who is taught to look always at the Creator of the universe, to offer every prayer to Him, and to do everything as if in the eyes of God, the Spectator B who looks into our very thoughts. We therefore pray both to see and to be guides of the blind, until they, approaching the Word of God, recover the sight of their souls which has been blinded by impurity. If we also do things worthy of Him who said to His disciples, "You are the light of the world," and of the Word who teaches that "the light shines in the darkness," we shall also be a light to those in darkness, and we shall educate the foolish and teach the simple. Let not Celsus be indignant when we call those "lame" and crippled in the foundations of their souls—those who hasten to supposed sanctuaries as if they were true sanctuaries, and do not see that no work of artisans can be holy. But those also who practice the piety consistent with the teaching of Jesus run, until, having reached the end of the race, they say with a strengthened and sincere disposition: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness." And each of us runs in this way, "not as uncertainly"; and we thus box C against wickedness, not as though beating the air, but against those who are under "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience." Let Celsus call us people who live by a dead body—we, that is, to whom it has been said: "If you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live"; and who learn: "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." And would that we were able to demonstrate by our deeds that he is lying when he says of us that we live by the "dead body." D
A After these things, therefore, to which we have replied as we were able, he says to us: "How much better would it have been for you, since you desired to introduce something new, to have applied yourselves to some other person who died nobly, and who was capable of having a divine myth received about him? Come, if Hercules and Asclepius and those of old who have been glorified did not please you, you had Orpheus, a man acknowledged to have made use of a holy Spirit, and who also died a violent death." But perhaps he had been pre-empted by others. At any rate, there was Anaxarchus, who, when cast into a mortar and being crushed in the most lawless manner, made great light of the punishment, saying: "Pound, pound the pouch of Anaxarchus, for you are not pounding him." A voice, indeed, of a truly divine spirit. But even to this man, certain natural philosophers had already followed him. Why therefore not Epictetus? who, when his master was twisting his leg, smiling and undisturbed, said: "You will break it"; and when he had broken it, he said, "Did I not tell you that you would break it?" What like thing did your God say while being punished? You might even have more reasonably put forward Sibylla B (37), whom some of you use, as the Daughter of God; but as it is, while you have the power to foolishly insert into her writings many things that are blasphemous (38), you set up as God one who lived a most infamous life and met with a most miserable death. How much more suitable for you was Jonah in the belly of the whale (39), or Daniel from the beasts, or others even more prodigious than these? Since then he sends us back to Hercules, let him set before us a record of his words (40), and let him offer a defense for his shameful servitude to Omphale; and let him show if he was worthy of divine honor, he who took the ox from the farmer by force and like a bandit, and feasted upon it, and took pleasure in the things which that man, while he was eating, said to him in his curses; so that even until now it is told that the daemon of Hercules (41) receives the sacrifice along with the curses. He calls us back to the tautology concerning Asclepius, although we have spoken before concerning him as well; but let what has been already said suffice.
But what of him who wondered at Orpheus? He says that he is acknowledged to have made use of a holy Spirit, and to have died a violent death, and so forth. C [alt-version omitted] D
A I am amazed, however, if Celsus does not also—because of his contentiousness against us, and in order to belittle Jesus—now praise Orpheus; whereas when he encountered his myths that are, as it were, impious regarding the gods, he did not treat his poems as detestable—as being even more worthy of being cast out of a well-ordered commonwealth than those of Homer. For Orpheus wrote much worse things about the supposed gods than Homer did. Noble, indeed, is the story of Anaxarchus, who said to Aristocreon, the tyrant of Cyprus: "Beat, beat the pouch of Anaxarchus"; but this is the one thing about Anaxarchus that the Greeks know to be worthy of admiration, and even if, as Celsus thinks, one ought to worship a human being for the sake of virtue, it was not reasonable for Anaxarchus to be proclaimed a god.
He also sends us to Epictetus, having admired his noble saying regarding the breaking of his leg—a saying which is not, however, of such a nature that it can be compared to the extraordinary works and words of Jesus which are disbelieved by Celsus; for the reason that those words of Jesus were spoken with divine power, and even until now they turn back not only some of the simpler people, but also many of the more intelligent ones. And since he says, after listing such a number of men, "What like thing did your God, when he was being punished, utter?" we would answer him that his silence amidst the scourging and the many torments betrayed a constancy and endurance greater than that of any among the Greeks who, finding themselves in difficult circumstances, voiced their complaints; provided that Celsus is willing to believe, with an open mind, what has been recorded by men who were lovers of truth, who have told even his extraordinary deeds without falsehood, and who have numbered among them his silence amidst the scourging. But he also, when being mocked and clothed in a scarlet cloak, and when a crown of thorns was placed upon his head, and when he took a reed into his hand in place of a scepter, made use of the utmost gentleness, saying nothing base B or resentful toward them, though they dared to do such things against him. It was not possible, therefore, for him who, out of endurance, was silent amidst the scourging and, out of gentleness, suffered everything brought upon him by those who mocked him, to have said out of baseness—as some suppose—that which is written: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." There is, indeed, a reason for the seemingly requested avoidance of what is called the "cup," which we have examined and set forth at greater length elsewhere. But that we may understand what was said more simply, consider whether that prayer was not spoken with piety toward God, because any person C who does not consider that a difficult circumstance arises not from a preceding cause, but rather endures it, when the time demands it, that which is not from a preceding cause...
A Furthermore, it was not the voice of one yielding, but of one well-pleased with what befell him, and preferring the circumstances sent by Providence, that said: "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." 57. Then, I know not how he wished us to announce the Sibyl as the daughter of God rather than Jesus, claiming that we have inserted many blasphemous things into her writings; yet he did not even demonstrate what we have inserted. He would have demonstrated it if he had shown the more ancient copies to be purer, and not possessing what he thinks has been interpolated. But having demonstrated neither that these are blasphemous—then again, not twice or thrice, but very often, he called the life of Jesus most shameful—without dwelling upon each of the things done in his life that were considered most shameful; so that by saying this, he might appear not only to be asserting things without proof, but also to be insulting one of whom he knows nothing. For if he had set forth the forms of the shameful life that appeared to him in his deeds, we would have struggled against each of the things that seemed to him to be most shameful. B But that Jesus also met a most pitiful death, this could also be said regarding Socrates and Anaxarchus, whom he mentioned a little before, and regarding countless others. Is the death of Jesus pitiful, but not that of those others? Or was theirs not pitiful, while that of Jesus was? You see, therefore, even in this, that the intent for Celsus was to rail against Jesus, moved, I think, by some spirit that had been defeated and cast down by Jesus, so that it might no longer have the savor and blood by which it was nourished and deceived those who sought God in images upon the earth, and who did not look up to the God who is truly over all. Then, next, as if having the goal of filling out the volume, he wished us to think of Jonah as God rather than Jesus; preferring Jonah, who preached repentance to the one city of Nineveh, to Jesus, who preached repentance to the whole world, and who accomplished it more successfully. And one who was miraculously and paradoxically maintained for three days and three nights in the belly of the whale he wished us to proclaim as God; but Celsus did not want one who undertook to die for the sake of men, who is attested by God through the prophets to be worthy of the honors second after the God of all—on account of the noble deeds he performed in heaven and on earth—to be so honored. And Jonah, C indeed, because he would not preach what was commanded by God, was swallowed by the whale; Jesus, however, since he taught what God willed, undertook death for the sake of men. Next he says that Daniel, having ascended from the lions, ought rather to have been worshipped by us above Jesus, who trampled underfoot the ferocity of every opposing power, and gave us authority to tread upon
B serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy. Then, having no others to speak of, he says: "Or others still more monstrous than these," intending thereby to insult Jonah and Daniel; for the spirit that is in Celsus did not know how to bless just men. After this, let us look at his next remark, which runs as follows: "They have also this commandment: not to avenge the one who commits an injury. If anyone strikes you, he says, on one cheek, offer the other as well. This is an ancient saying and was elegantly stated long ago, although they have reported it more rustically." For Plato makes Socrates converse with Crito thus: "Should one never do wrong? Certainly not. May one not, then, return an injury with an injury, as the majority think, since one should never do wrong? It does not seem so. What then, Crito? Should one do harm or not? It should not be done, I suppose, Socrates. What then? Is it just or unjust to do harm in return for harm received, as the majority say? Not at all. For to do harm to men differs in no way from doing wrong. You speak the truth. Therefore, one should not return an injury, nor do harm to any human being, no matter what you may have suffered from them." These are the words of Plato; and again: "Consider therefore well, you too, whether you are of this same opinion and concur; and let us take this as our beginning for deliberation, that it is never right to do wrong, or to avenge wrong with wrong, or when one has suffered harm, to do harm in return; or do you dissent and not concur in this principle? For my part, I have held this opinion for a long time, and I still hold it." To Plato, therefore, it seemed thus; and it had been ordained by divine men even before him. But as regards these points and the others which they distort, let these things suffice. Whoever desires more will easily discover it himself.
B Regarding this, and regarding all the points that Celsus has made common property—being unable to face their truth, claiming that they were said also among the Greeks—the following must be said: If the doctrine is useful and its intention healthy, whether it is said among the Greeks by Plato or some other of the Greek sages, or among the Jews by Moses or some of the prophets, or among the Christians in the recorded words of Jesus or as spoken by one of his apostles, one ought not to think that what is said by Jews or Christians is to be blamed because the Greeks also have said the same things; especially if it is demonstrated that the writings of the Jews are older than those of the Greeks. Nor, again, ought one to think that the beauty of the Greek phrasing makes that which is expressed by them superior to what is reported more plainly elsewhere.
and in simpler words by the Jews or Christians. Although the initial Jewish diction, with which the prophets left us the books they wrote, is recorded in the Hebrew tongue and in a wise composition characteristic of that language. A If it is necessary also to show that the identity of the doctrines — even if the claim seems paradoxical — is expressed better by the Jewish prophets or the words of the Christians, the argument must be constructed from a certain example concerning food and its preparation. Let there be some healthy food capable of producing strength in those who eat it; and let this food, when prepared in such a way and seasoned with certain spices, be eaten not by the unlearned, the rustic, or the poor brought up in huts, who are not accustomed to eating such things, but only by the wealthy and those of delicate living; B or, alternatively, let it be prepared not in that way—which seems good to those who pass for more refined—but as the poor, the more rustic, and the masses of men have learned to eat it, in such a way that myriads of people may eat of it. If, therefore, it were granted that by the former preparation those considered more refined are alone restored to health, with none of the masses enjoying such food, while by the latter preparation the multitudes of men live more healthily, whom shall we more commend, for the sake of the common good, regarding the healthy foods? C Is it those who prepare them usefully for the elite, or those who prepare them for the masses? For let it be granted that there is an equal amount of health and good condition resulting from the food prepared in either way; yet it is clear, and our very love of humanity and regard for the common good suggests, that a physician is more useful who provides for the health of many than one who provides only for the few. If the example is understood, it must be transferred to the quality of the rational food for rational beings. And see if Plato and the wise men of the Greeks, in what they say well, are not like those physicians who take thought D for those alone who are considered more refined, while despising the multitude of men; whereas the prophets among the Jews and the disciples of Jesus, having said farewell to the versatile composition of words and to the "wisdom of men," as Scripture calls it, and "wisdom according to the flesh," which obscures the language, would be likened to those who have provided that the quality of the foods be most healthy, having prepared and arranged them with a composition of words that is accessible and adapted to the masses of men, neither making their dialect strange, nor—by the [use of such]—averting them from listening as if they were hearing something unusual...
A but rather manifesting a meaning that can be perceived by those who dedicate themselves to the examination of the Word, which becomes clear in proportion to the leisure and readiness one brings to the Word. For indeed, if the object is—to name it so—by means of a rational food to make the eater patient and gentle, how would the Word not be better prepared which makes a multitude of people patient and gentle—or at least progressing in these virtues—than one which (if this even be granted) makes only a very few and easily countable people patient and gentle? Just as a Greek who wishes to benefit those who speak Egyptian or Syrian B with healthy doctrines would have cared to learn the dialects of those about to hear him, and—as the Greeks call it—would choose to "barbarize" for the sake of the improvement of the Egyptians and Syrians, rather than remain a Greek and be able to say nothing useful to the Egyptians and Syrians; so too did the divine nature, which provides for not only those who are thought to be educated in Greek learning, but also for the rest of the Greeks, accommodate itself to the ignorance of the multitude of hearers, so that it might, by using words familiar to them, call forth the multitude of the uneducated to hearing, who, after the introduction has once taken place, can exert themselves C to grasp even the deeper meanings hidden in the Scriptures. For it is manifest to anyone who reads them that there is much that is deeper than what is immediately apparent. Therefore, it is established that, as Celsus says, Jesus, by speaking somewhat more rustically: "To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer also the other, and to him who wishes to go to law with you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well," has moved the Word toward greater utility for life, and has presented it in such a way—or as it is said in the D *Crito* of Plato, which even the uneducated cannot hear, but which is scarcely understood by those who have learned the standard liberal arts before the solemn philosophy of the Greeks. Furthermore, it must be understood that the precept concerning patience is not corrupted by the simplicity of the words; rather, in this too, Celsus slanders the Word, saying, "But let these things and others, which corrupt, suffice; and whoever wishes to seek more of them will know." Let us stand there: "They do not endure seeing temples, and altars, and images." For neither the Scythians, nor the Nomads in Libya, nor the Seres—who are without any god—nor other most impious and barbarous nations...
and indeed not even the Persians themselves, can endure to see temples, and altars, and images; yet it does not follow from this that their reason for not enduring them is the same as ours. For one must examine the doctrines from which they proceed in refusing to endure temples and images, so that if one does not endure them on the basis of sound doctrines, he may be praised, but if on the basis of erroneous ones, he may be blamed. For it is possible for the same thing to result from different doctrines. For example, those who philosophize after the manner of Zeno of Citium avoid adultery, A but so do those who follow Epicurus, and even some who are entirely unlearned. But look at how great a disagreement there is concerning the avoidance of adultery among these [different groups]: some avoid it because it is contrary to the social nature of the rational animal to debauch a woman already taken by the laws and to ruin another man's household; but those who follow Epicurus, when they refrain from adultery, do not refrain for this reason, but because they consider pleasure to be the end, and they judge that many things impede pleasure for one who gives way to the single pleasure of committing adultery, and sometimes they [refrain from it] because of the fear of guards, or exile, or death.
B That the Persians also think in this way, Herodotus records in these words: "I know that the Persians use these customs: they do not hold it lawful to set up images, and altars, and temples, but they even bring a charge of folly against those who do so. As I believe, it is because they have not deemed the gods to be of human form, as do the Greeks." And furthermore, Heraclitus also declares himself after this fashion: "And they pray to these images, just as if one were to converse with houses, not knowing who the gods and heroes are." What, then, do they teach us that is wiser than Heraclitus? He, indeed, significantly intimates that it is foolish to pray to images if one does not know who the gods and heroes are. So says Heraclitus; but others flatly dishonor the images. If it is because a stone, or wood, or bronze, or gold—which such a one or such a one fashioned—cannot be a God, that would be a ridiculous piece of wisdom; for who else, unless he is a complete simpleton, considers these to be gods, rather than offerings and images of the gods? But if [they reject them] because one must not suppose these to be divine images, since the form of God is different, as it also seems to the Persians—they are caught contradicting themselves when they say that God made man in His own image, and that the form is like unto Himself. But they will agree that these exist for the honor of certain beings, whether similar or dissimilar in form; yet that those to whom these are dedicated are not gods, but demons; and that one who worships God ought not to pay honor to demons.
C And to these things it must be said: that if the Scythians, and the Nomads of Libya, and the Seres—whom Celsus says are without gods—and other most savage and barbarous nations, and furthermore the Persians, do not endure to see temples, and altars, and images, it is by no means equal that their not enduring these things is the same as our not enduring them. For one must examine the doctrines from which those who do not endure them are impelled to refuse to endure temples and images; in order that, if one does not endure them because of healthy dogmas, he may be praised; if because of mistaken ones, he may be blamed. For it is possible that the same thing may come to pass from different dogmas. Take, for example, those who philosophize according to Zeno of Citium refrain from adultery, but so do those who follow Epicurus, and some even of simple, uninstructed people. But look, how great a discord there is concerning the refusal to commit adultery among such as these: some [do so] because of what is social and because it is contrary to nature for a rational animal to debauch a woman pre-empted by the laws for another, and to ruin another man's household; but those who follow Epicurus do not for this reason not commit adultery when they refrain from it, but because they have come to regard pleasure as the end, and they judge that many things arise D that prevent pleasure for one who yields to the one pleasure of committing adultery; and there are times when they deem guard-duties, or exile, or death...
and frequently B even dangers beyond these, while he watches for the husband’s departure from the house, and the movements of those who favor the husband’s interests — that if one were to suppose it possible for an adulterer to remain unnoticed by the woman’s husband, and all his household, and those among whom one would have a bad reputation from the act of adultery, then even the Epicurean would commit adultery for the sake of pleasure.
But as to the common man, if at any time, when there is an opportunity for adultery, he keeps himself from adultery, the cause is often not the pursuing of more pleasures, but the fear of the law and the punishments that are present. You see, therefore, that this action which is thought to be one, the abstaining from adultery, is not the same for all, but becomes different according to the intentions of those who abstain; for it proceeds either from sound doctrines, or from those that are wicked and most impious, such as those of the Epicurean or of that common man.
As, therefore, this one thing, the abstaining from adultery, while appearing to be one, is seen to be manifold, being various according to the different doctrines and intentions, so too in the case of those who do not endure to worship the Divine at altars, and temples, and statues — such as the Scythians, or the Nomads of Libya, or the Seres who have no god, or the Persians — they do this from different doctrines than those from which Christians and Jews refuse to worship the Divine in such a way. For none of those avoids temples, and altars, and statues because he fears C to bring down and reduce the worship of the Divine onto such material, fashioned in this way; nor because he considers that demons reside in certain statues and places, having been brought down by some incantations, or having been able otherwise to seize for themselves places where, greedily partaking of the odor of the sacrifices, they hunt for unlawful pleasure in an unlawful way.
But Christians and Jews, because of, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve," and because of, "Thou shalt have no other gods beside Me," and, "Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol, nor any likeness, of what is in the heaven above, or in the earth below, or in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor shalt thou serve them," and because of, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve," and many other things similar to these, not only turn away from temples, and altars, and statues, but also, when the occasion arises, they are ready to die, in order not to defile their conception of the God of all by any such impiety. D
A It has been said in the preceding pages regarding the Persians, that they do not build temples, but honor the sun and the works of God. This has been forbidden to us, who have been taught not to worship the creature in place of the Creator; but to know that the creature shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God; and that the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God; and that the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Furthermore, we must not consider that things subject to the bondage of corruption and to vanity, and which remain in that state only in the hope of something better, are to be honored in place of the self-sufficient God, or of His Son, the Firstborn of all creation. It is enough, then, having added these things to what was said before, to speak regarding the Persian nation, which avoids altars and statues, but worships the creature rather than the Creator.
Since he has also cited the word of Heraclitus, having explained it as indicating that it is foolish to pray to statues if one does not know who the gods and heroes are, it must be said that it is possible to know God, and His Only-begotten, and those who have been honored by God with the title of God, and who partake of His divinity—who are different from all the gods of the nations, for these are demons—and yet not to pray to statues. And not only is it foolish to pray to statues, but it is also foolish to assume the appearance of praying to statues merely to conform to the crowd; which is what those who philosophize according to the Peripatetic school B do, or those who embrace the views of Epicurus or Democritus. For nothing counterfeit ought to dwell in the soul of one who is truly pious toward the Divine. We do not honor statues also so that we may not, as far as it depends on us, fall into the assumption that statues are other gods. This is why we reproach Celsus and all who confess that these are not gods, yet appear to render honor to statues, as they are considered wise. Following them, many of the masses not only err in thinking that they should worship them for the sake of conformity, but they also fall in their souls into the belief that they are gods, and cannot even endure to hear that the things which they worship are not gods. Celsus indeed says that he does not consider them gods, but offerings to the gods; he does not demonstrate how they are not rather offerings of men than, as he named them, of the gods themselves. For it is clear that these are offerings of men who are wandering in their understanding of the Divine. Nor do we suppose that statues are divine images, inasmuch as they do not depict the form of the invisible and incorporeal God. Since C Celsus assumes that we are... [The text here breaks off as the English translation ends at the end of the printed page.]
depict the form of the invisible and incorporeal God. Since Celsus assumes that we are A in contradiction with ourselves when we say that the Divine has no human form, yet believe that God made man in His own image and that He made him in the image of God, it must be said, as has been stated above, that we maintain the "in the image of God" resides in the rational soul, fashioned according to virtue. And Celsus, remaining there, not seeing the difference between being the image of God and being made according to the image of God, says that we claim God made man His own image and a form similar to Himself. But this too has been discussed above. B Next he says concerning the Christians that "They will agree that these are dedicated to the honor of some beings, whether they are similar or dissimilar in form; but that those to whom these are dedicated are not gods, but demons; and that one who worships God ought not to serve demons." If he had known the doctrine concerning demons, and what each of them effects, whether invited by those who are adepts in such arts or by voluntarily exerting themselves as they desire and are able to act, and had grasped the doctrine concerning demons, which is vast and difficult for human nature to comprehend, he would not have reproached us for stating that one who worships the God over all ought not to serve demons. And we are so far from serving demons that we even drive them out of human souls C and from the places in which they have settled, and sometimes even from animals, by prayers and by the lessons from the Sacred Scriptures. For often demons perform certain things for the injury of even such creatures. But because many things have previously been said by us concerning Jesus, it is not necessary now to repeat the same thing in reply to the statement: "That they are clearly convicted of worshipping not God, nor even a demon, but a dead man." Passing over this for the moment, let us look at the next words of Celsus, in which he says: "But first I will ask, why should demons not be served? Is not all things administered according to the will of God? And is not all providence from Him? And whatever occurs in the universe, whether it be the work of God, or of angels, or of other demons, or of heroes, does not all this have its law prescribed by the greatest God? And is not one who has been deemed worthy of this office appointed over each thing, having received power?" D "Does not he, therefore, who has obtained authority from thence, justly serve him to whom power has been granted by God? For it is impossible, he says, for the same person to serve many masters." See here too how many things he takes for granted, which require no trivial investigation, but rather a knowledge of deeper and more recondite matters concerning the administration of the affairs of the universe. For it must be examined how it is said that "all things are administered according to the will of God," and whether this administration extends even to the sins that are committed or not. For if the administration extends even to sins, not only among men but also among demons, and if any other thing devoid of body is liable to sin; let the one who says this see how absurd it is that all…
...to see the absurdity of him who says that all things are administered by the will of God; for it follows from this reasoning that sins themselves and everything that proceeds from vice are administered according to the will of God, which is not the same as saying that they occur while God does not prevent them. But if one were to understand properly what it means to be "administered," to say that things resulting from vice are administered, it is evident that all things are administered by the will of God, and that anyone who sins does not sin against the administration of God. A similar distinction must be made concerning Providence; one must say that the statement "All providence is from Him" signifies something true, provided that providence is understood to be something good. But if we were to say without qualification that all things that happen occur by providence, then if anything happens in an evil way, the statement "All providence is from Him" would be false, unless perhaps one were to say that things which happen as a consequence of the operations of God’s providence are also from God’s providence. He also declares that whatever exists in the universe, whether it be the work of God, or of angels, or of other demons, or of heroes, all these things have a law prescribed by the Most High God. But his assertion is not true. For even those things that transgress do not follow the law ordained by the Most High God when they transgress. Logic shows that it is not only vile men who transgress, but also vile demons and vile angels. B We are not the only ones who call demons vile; almost everyone who posits the existence of demons does so. Therefore, not everything has a law from the Most High God. For whatever has fallen away from the divine law through individual negligence, vice, wickedness, or ignorance of the good, does not have the law of God, but, to use a new term and one common to Scripture, has the law of sin. According to many of those who postulate the existence of demons, even vile demons do not have the law from God, but transgress; according to us, all demons, having fallen from the path that leads to the good, were not originally demons; and the class of demons is a type of those who have fallen from God. Therefore, whoever worships God ought not to worship demons. What concerns demons is also manifested by those who call upon them C for the sake of what are called love charms, or hatred charms, or for hindering actions, or for myriad other such things; things which are practiced by those who, through incantations and sorcery, have learned how to call and summon demons whenever they wish. Therefore, the worship of all demons is foreign to us who worship the God over all; and the worship of demons is the worship of those who are considered gods: "For all the gods of the gentiles are demons." This is also clear from the fact that curious invocations were used in sanctuaries that appeared to be more effective, and that this was the case at the very beginnings of the establishment of such statues and temples.
A These evocations were performed by those who, employing magical arts, were addicted to the worship of demons. Hence it is that we shun the cult of demons as a ruinous thing, and consider those rites which the Greeks use before altars, statues, and temples to be the worship of demons.
Was each one appointed to a task, and has he received power from God, whoever was deemed worthy of any work? But this requires a deeper knowledge, by which it might be determined whether, just as executioners in cities and others are assigned to cruel but necessary duties in the state, such evil demons were in like manner appointed by the Word of God who administers all things; or whether, just as robbers in desert places set up one from among themselves to rule over them, so the demons, having gathered as if in groups in different regions of the earth, have appointed for themselves a prince whose lead they might follow in the actions B they chose for the sake of stealing and robbing the souls of men.
He who desires to speak well on these matters, that he might defend the Christians — who shun the worship of anything other than the God over all, and his Word and God, the firstborn of every creature — must expound upon this: "All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them"; and this: "The thief does not come except to steal and to kill and to destroy"; and if anything else similar to this is said in the sacred Scriptures, such as this too: "Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you"; and this other: "You shall walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and you shall trample the lion and the dragon."
But Celsus knew nothing of these things. For if they were known to him, he would not have said: "Does not whatever happens in this universe—whether a work of God, or of angels, or of demons, or of heroes—have a law prescribed for it by the greatest God? Was not each one, having received power, appointed to each thing, whoever was deemed worthy?" Consequently, will not one who worships God rightly worship also him to whom power has been given by God? To these he adds: "For it is impossible to serve many masters." C But we shall discuss this in the following book. For this seventh book, which we have written against the treatise of Celsus, has grown to a sufficient size.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS, BOOK EIGHT
I have now reached the point of finishing seven books, and I wish to begin the eighth. May God and his only-begotten Word be present with us, that Celsus’s lies—falsely given the title of "True Word"—may be courageously refuted, A and that the truth of Christianity may be powerfully demonstrated, as much as our subject matter allows. We pray that we may be able to speak with the same disposition as Paul: "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were exhorting through us," and to be ambassadors for Christ toward men, just as the Word of God exhorts them to love for Himself; for He desires to reconcile to justice, truth, and the remaining virtues those who, before the acceptance of the doctrines of Jesus Christ, were dwelling in darkness regarding God and in ignorance of the Creator. I will say again: may God grant us the brave and true word, the Lord who is mighty and strong in the war against malice.
Now we must proceed to the next passage of Celsus and the response to it. He previously raised the question toward us as to why we do not worship demons, and to what he said regarding demons, we replied according to the will of the divine Word as it appeared to us. B Next, he introduces us as replying to his objection—in which he wished us to worship the demons as well—by saying that it is impossible for the same person to serve many masters. This, according to him, is the language of sedition, adopted by those—as he phrased it—who seclude and tear themselves away from the rest of mankind. He thinks that those who say this, as far as they are able, transfer their own affectation onto God.
For which reason, he thinks it has a place among men—that one who is serving a certain person could not reasonably serve another man as well, as if the other party would be harmed by the divided service; nor should one who has already sworn an oath to one person swear it to another, as it implies an injury to serve different heroes and demons of that sort at the same time. But concerning God, toward whom no harm or grief can befall, he considers it absurd to be similarly cautious and to avoid the worship of many gods, as if He were being treated like men, heroes, and demons of that sort.
C He also says that he who worships many gods does something pleasing to that one God, by worshipping one of the things that belong to Him; and he adds that it is unlawful to pay honor to anyone to whom this has not been given by Him. Wherefore, he says, the cult offered to all who belong to God does not displease Him, because they all belong to Him. Let us see, then, before proceeding further, whether we might not justly accept the saying: "No man can serve two masters," to which is added: "For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other." And next: "You cannot serve God and mammon." The defense of this saying calls us to a deeper and more recondite discourse concerning gods and lords. For the divine Scripture knows that the Lord is great above all gods; by whom we do not understand those who are worshipped among the nations—since we have learned that all the gods of the nations are demons—but rather those gods of whose gathering the prophetic word takes note, and the God over all who judges them and assigns to each his own proper work. "For God has stood in the gathering of gods, and in the midst He will judge the gods." For He is the God of gods and Lord, who through the Son has called the earth from the rising of the sun to the setting. We are commanded also to confess to the God of gods; having learned also that "God is not of the dead, but of the living." These things are said not only through the passages set forth, but also through ten thousand others. The divine Words teach us to examine and understand such things also concerning the Lord of lords; at one point saying, "Confess to the God of gods, for His mercy is to eternity; confess to the Lord of lords, for His mercy is to eternity"; at another point, "For God is the King of kings and Lord of lords." The Word knows some who are called gods, and others who truly are, whether they are called so or not; and teaching the same concerning lords who exist and those who do not, Paul says: "For even if there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords." D Since, then, the God of gods calls through Jesus from the sunrise and the sunset whom He wills to His own portion, and since Christ, being the Lord of God, shows by the fact that He has traversed the boundaries of all and calls to Himself from all boundaries that He is superior to all who are called lords—it is for this reason that Paul, knowing these things, says after the things I have quoted: "But for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." And observing a wonderful and mysterious truth on this topic, he adds to them: "But knowledge is not in all." When, however, he says: "But for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," by this voice he signifies to us...
A and to all who have ascended towards the God of gods over all, and to the Lord of lords over all, that one. And he has ascended towards the God over all who worships Him inseparably, indivisibly, and without division through the only Son who leads to Him, the Word of God and wisdom seen in Jesus, for those who in every way attempt to make themselves familiar—through singular words, actions, and thoughts—with the Creator of the universe, God.
Besides these things, I think that the one who transforms himself into an angel of light, the prince of this age, has also devised things similar to these, saying: "Then follows an army of gods and demons, ordered in eleven parts"; among which he says regarding himself and those who have philosophized: "With Zeus we, but others with other demons." Since, therefore, many are called or are gods, and B likewise lords, we do everything so that we might transcend not only those things worshipped as gods by the nations on earth, but also those whom the Scriptures call gods—concerning whom those who are strangers to the covenants of God given through Moses and our Savior Jesus, and who are aliens to His promises revealed through these, know nothing.
But he rises above the servitude toward all demons who does nothing friendly to demons; and he rises above the portion of those whom Paul calls gods who considers, whether as they do or however the situation may be, not the things which are seen, but the things which are not seen; and one who sees in what way even the "earnest expectation of the creation waits for the revealing of the sons of God," not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it in hope—praising the creation, and seeing in what way "the creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, and shall arrive at the freedom of the glory of the children of God"—is not distracted toward serving God and some other one alongside Him, nor toward serving two masters.
There is, therefore, no voice of sedition among those who have understood such things and who do not wish to serve many masters; for this reason, they are satisfied with the Lord Jesus Christ, who disciplines under Himself those who serve Him, so that He may deliver them, trained and become a kingdom worthy of God, to God and the Father. C But also they separate and tear themselves away from those who are aliens to the commonwealth of God and strangers to His covenants; that it may be that in heaven... D [The following is a citation from Plato's *Phaedrus*, which Celsus employs:] "For the great leader in heaven, Zeus, driving a winged chariot, goes first, ordering all things and taking care of them; and an army of gods and demons follows him, arranged in eleven parts. For Hestia remains alone in the house of the gods; but of the others, as many as are ranked in the number of the twelve ruling gods, they lead according to the order in which each was stationed. And it was then a beautiful thing to see, when they followed with a blessed choir, viewing a blessed vision and spectacle; we were with Zeus, while others were with another of the gods, and they saw and were initiated into those rites, which it is right to call most blessed."
A ... alienated from the commonwealth of God and strangers to his covenants; so that they may live as citizens of heaven, approaching the living God and the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and the myriads of angels, the festal gathering, and the church of the firstborn who are written in the heavens. But it is not because God receives injury—as a man is thought to be injured by someone who serves another besides him—that we decline to serve any other than God through his Word and his truth; rather, it is so that we ourselves may not be harmed by separating ourselves from the portion of the God over all, in which we live fittingly for his blessedness, inspired by an excellent spirit of adoption; a spirit that cries out in the sons of the heavenly Father, not in words, but in reality, in secret: Abba, Father.
Indeed, the ambassadors of the Lacedaemonians did not worship the Persian king, even though his bodyguards strongly compelled them, revering their one lord, the law of Lycurgus; but those who perform the much greater and more divine embassy for Christ would not worship the ruler of the Persians, nor the Greeks, nor the Egyptians, nor any ruler of any nation, even if the demons—the bodyguards of the rulers—and the angels of the devil wish to compel them to do so, and persuade them to tell that which is better than any law on earth to go a long way off. For the Lord of those who serve as ambassadors for Christ is Christ, for whom they act as ambassadors, who was the Word in the beginning, and was with God, and was God.
Next, since Celsus thought to raise a more profound argument regarding heroes and certain demons, saying, after his argument concerning servitude towards men—as if the superior to whom one intends to serve is injured if one also wishes to serve a second—that the same must be thought regarding heroes and such demons; we must ask him what he deems these heroes to be, and what sort of beings he says these such demons are, so that one serving this hero must not serve another, and one serving this demon must not serve another, as if the prior demon were injured in a way analogous to those humans who are injured when someone who previously served them gives himself to others. But let him also show what sort of loss he thinks these heroes or demons suffer. For he will be forced either to B fall into a sea of nonsense C and D be obliged to take back his words and retract what has been said; or else—
if he does not wish to be talking nonsense, to confess that he knows nothing of the nature of heroes or demons. A Regarding his argument about men—that they are harmed if one, while serving them, serves another—we must ask: what injury does he claim happens to the first man if the one serving him desires to serve another as well? For if he speaks as a layman and as an unphilosophical person about damage concerning the money or external things signified to us, he would be refuted as never having understood that which was well said by Socrates: "Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they cannot harm me; for it is not right that the superior be harmed by the inferior." B But if he means by "harm" a movement or habit according to vice, it is clear that, since no such harm happens to the wise, one may serve two wise men even if they are in different places. And if this meaning is not reasonable, he has taken the example in vain to reproach the saying, "No man can serve two masters"; for the statement is most true when it refers to the duty toward the God of all through his Son, who brings us to God. We do not worship God as one who is needy, nor as one who would be grieved if we did not worship him; but we ourselves receive benefit from our worship of God, and we become free from grief and passion by serving the God over all through his only-begotten Word and Wisdom. C And observe how unexamined is the statement, "For if you worship anything else of those in the universe," in which he implies that we bring our worship of God, without any harm to ourselves, simply to some other thing belonging to God. But as if he perceived that he had spoken unhealthily when he said, "For if you worship anything else of those in the universe," he subsequently turns back and adds a correction to what he said: "In this case, it is not possible for anyone to be honored unless it has been given to him by that One." Let us ask Celsus regarding those who are honored as gods, demons, or even heroes: "From where, O excellent man, are you able to prove that it was given by God that these should be honored, and not rather that this happens from the ignorance and lack of learning of men who wander D and fall away from the One who is properly honored?" For instance, as you said a little while ago, Celsus, the favorites of Hadrian are honored; and you would hardly say that it was given by the God of all that they should be honored, like Antinous as a god. We shall say the same thing regarding others, demanding a proof that it was given to them by the God over all that they should be honored. And if he should counter-object something similar regarding the [Jesus]—
we shall demonstrate that the honor given to him has been granted by God, so that all might honor the Son, as they honor the Father. For all the prophecies concerning him before his birth were foundations of his honor. But also, the wonders he worked, not by sorcery as Celsus thinks, but by the divinity foretold by the prophets, had their testimony from God, so that he who honors the Son, who is the Word, might, by doing nothing contrary to reason, receive benefit from honoring him; and he who honors him, being Truth, might become better from the honoring of truth; and likewise from the honoring of wisdom and justice, and all those things that the divine Scriptures declare the Son of God to be.
That the honor directed toward the Son of God consists in a sound life, see whether we are not taught this: "You who boast in the law, by the transgression of the law do you dishonor God"; and by this: "Of how much worse punishment do you think he B will be deemed worthy, who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant, by which he was sanctified, a common thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" For if, through the transgression of the law, he who violates the law dishonors God, and he who tramples the Word tramples the Son of God, it is evident that God is honored by him who keeps the law, and that God is worshipped by him who is adorned with the Word of God and his works.
If Celsus had known who belong to God, and that they are the wise, and who are the strangers, and that only those are evil who never incline toward the acquisition of virtue, he would certainly have understood what is meant by this: "Whoever, therefore, honors and worships all who belong to Him, how does he grieve God, to whom all belong?"
Following this he says: "And furthermore, he who says that one Lord is spoken of, speaking of God, acts impiously, dividing the kingdom of God, and stirring up sedition, as if there were a faction, and some other being who is an adversary to him." These things might have had some room C if he could prove by mathematical demonstrations that those worshiped by the nations as gods are true gods, and that those who are thought to be around statues, temples, and altars are not just some base demons.
But as for the kingdom of God that is constantly spoken of and written about among us, we pray both to understand it and to become such that we are ruled by God alone, and that the kingdom of God may become ours. But he who teaches us to venerate many gods, if he had wished to be consistent with himself, ought to have spoken of a kingdom of gods rather than of God. There are, therefore, no factions with God, nor is there any god who is an adversary to him, even if certain ones, like Giants or Titans, because of their own wickedness, wish to fight against God along with Celsus and those who declare war against Him through the myriad proofs D of those who have seen how one ought to speak regarding Jesus; and against him who, for the salvation of our human race, has…
A been given, as each was able to receive Him, as the Word who was present to the whole world.
One might think that what follows is a plausible argument against us: "If indeed," he says, "these people worshipped no other God than one God, they would perhaps have some sound argument against others; but now, they worship this person who has recently appeared to an extraordinary degree, and yet they think they commit no sin against God, even if they worship His minister."
To this too it must be said that, if Celsus had understood this: *I and the Father are one*; and this other thing spoken by the Son of God in prayer: *As I and Thou are one*, he would not have let himself think that we worship any other than the God who is over all. For the Father, he says, is in me, and I in the Father. But if anyone B is distracted by these things, fearing that we are defecting to those who deny that the Father and the Son are two subsistences, let him pay attention to this: *The heart and soul of all the believers was one*, so that he may understand what is meant by, *I and the Father are one*. We worship, therefore, as we have explained, one God—the Father and the Son—and thus the sound argument against others remains for us; nor do we worship with supreme devotion him who recently appeared, as if he did not exist before. For we obey Him who said: *Before Abraham came to be, I am*; and Him who says: *I am the truth*; and no one among us is of such a servile mind as to think that the substance of the truth did not exist before the times of the appearance of Christ.
We worship, therefore, the Father of the truth and the Son, who is the truth, C being two things in subsistence, but one in agreement and in concord and in identity of will; so that he who has seen the Son, who is the *radiance of [God’s] glory and the stamp of God’s subsistence*, has seen in Him, who is the image of God, God Himself.
Then he thinks that from our worshipping His Son together with God, it follows that, in our view, not only God but also His ministers are to be worshipped. If he had understood who are, after the Only-Begotten of God, the true ministers of God—Gabriel, Michael, and the rest of the angels D and archangels—and had said that these ought to be worshipped, perhaps, having purified the meaning of the word "to worship," and the actions of the one who worships, I would have brought forward here, as the occasion required, those things which could be said on this subject.
But since he considers A the demons worshipped by the Gentiles to be ministers, the logical sequence does not compel us to admit the worship of those B whom Scripture shows to be ministers of that evil one and of the prince of this world, who turns away from God whomever he can. We therefore altogether decline to worship and serve those whom the rest of men venerate, because they are not ministers. For if we had learned that they were ministers of the supreme God, we would not say they were demons. Therefore, we venerate the one God and his one Son, the Word and Image, with such prayers and petitions as are possible for us, offering our prayers to the God of the universe through his Only-begotten. We offer them to him first, asking that he, being the propitiation for our sins and the high priest, might present our prayers, sacrifices, and intercessions to the God over all. Thus, our faith regarding God is through his Son who confirms it in us; and Celsus cannot show that we have any division regarding the Son of God. And indeed, we venerate the Father, while we admire his Son, who is the Word, wisdom, truth, justice, and all things that we have learned the Son of God to be, begotten as he is from such a Father. And so much for these things.
C Since, however, Celsus says again that, "If you teach them that this one is not the Son of that one, but that the latter is the Father of all, whom alone one ought truly to worship, they would no longer be willing, unless this one also is worshipped, who is to them the author of the sedition; and they have called him the Son of God, not because they worship God greatly, but because they extol him greatly"—as for us, having learned who the Son of God is, and that he is the radiance of his glory and the stamp of his essence, and a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty, and furthermore a radiance of eternal light, and a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness—we know that this Son is from that Father, and that the latter is the Father of the former. And there is nothing absurd in this teaching, nor anything unbefitting to God, who has brought forth such an Only-begotten Son. And no one shall persuade us that such a one is not the Son of the unbegotten God and Father. If Celsus has heard certain people who would deny that the Son of God is the Son of him by whom this universe was created, let him look to that himself, and let those look to it who give their assent to such views. D
Jesus is, therefore, no leader of sedition, but of all peace, having said to his disciples: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you." And since he knew that men of the world, and not of God, would make war upon us, he added to those words: "Not as the world gives peace, do I give peace unto you." But we take courage in him, even if we are afflicted in the world, since he said: B "In the world you shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." And we say that this is the Son of God; the Son, I say, of that God whom, to use Celsus’s words, we worship exceedingly, and we know his Son to have been exceedingly exalted by the Father. Now I am willing to acknowledge that in the multitude of believers there are some who, following a different opinion from others, rashly affirm that the Savior is the most high God; yet we certainly do not, who believe him when he says: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." Wherefore we do not, as Celsus falsely accuses us, subject the one whom we now call Father to the Son of God.
B After this, Celsus says: "But that I may show that these things are not mere assertions on my part, I shall make use of the very words of those people; for in the 'Heavenly Dialogue' they say somewhere to this effect: 'If the Son of God is stronger than God, and if the Son of man is his Lord, who else could be lord of the God who rules over all? How is it that there are many around the well, and no one into the well? Why, taking such a journey, art thou timid?' 'Thou art mistaken, for there is with me courage and a sword.'" C Is it not clear from this that this is their intention? For they posit another God, who is above the heavens, as the Father of this one whom they have gathered to worship, so that under the pretext of a great God they may worship only this Son of man, whom they propose, and whom they declare to be stronger than, and lord of, the God who rules over all. Hence comes their precept, that one should not serve two masters, so that the faction may be preserved around this one alone. And in this he again brings a charge against all Christians, taking these things from I know not what most obscure heresy; and I say "most obscure," because, although we have often engaged in conflict with those from the heresies, D it is not clear to us from what opinion Celsus has taken these things—if indeed he has taken them, and has not rather invented them, or added them as a deduction. For we clearly, who say that he who created the whole world also created the sensible world, declare that the Son is not stronger than the Father, but inferior. And we say this believing him who says: "The Father who sent me is greater than I"; nor is any one among us so stupid as to say that the Son of man is the Lord of God.
We say, however, that the Saviour has authority, especially when A we consider him as God the Word, and Wisdom, and Justice, and Truth, over all things subjected to him, inasmuch as these things are such; but we do not say that he has authority over the Father and God who has authority over him. And since the Word does not rule over those who are unwilling, and there are still some who are wicked, not only among men but also among the angels, and all demons; we say that he does not yet rule over them, since they do not willingly yield to him. But in another sense of "ruling," he also rules over them, just as we say that a man rules over irrational animals, not by having subjected their governing principle, as he rules over certain lions and beasts that have been tamed; yet he does everything so that he may also persuade those who do not now obey him and thereby rule over them. According to us, then, that which is said by Celsus as if it were announced by us is a lie: "Who else will exercise lordship over the God who has authority?" I think he is again confusing things, borrowing from another heresy: "How many are about the well, and no one into the well?" and: "Why, having traveled such a journey, are you timid? You err"; and: "For I have courage and a sword." None of which do we, who belong to the Church named after Christ, say to be true. Having said these things first, he seems to say things consistent with himself, which are nothing to us. For our purpose is not to worship a God from some hypothesis, but the maker of this whole universe and of whatever is neither perceived by the senses nor shown. Let those see to it who walk a different path and other tracks, and who, while denying this one, have given themselves over to a newly fashioned fiction and name of God only, as being greater than the maker, and if there is anyone who says that the Son is stronger and is Lord of the God who has authority. We have already rendered the account that appears to us concerning the fact that one must not serve two masters; when we also demonstrated that no sedition is shown concerning Jesus and the Lord among those who confess that they have transcended every lord, and serve only that Lord who is the Son of God and the Word. After these things Celsus says: B that we shrink from erecting altars, statues, and temples; because... C regarding the erecting of statues and temples, for he says... as below.
D Among Minucius Felix, page 25, Caecilius objects the same thing that Celsus does: "Why do they have no altars, no temples, no known statues?" To whom Octavius, responding in almost the same way as Origen on page 95, says: "But do you think we conceal what we worship, if we have no shrines and altars? For what statue should I fashion for God, when, if you consider it rightly, man himself is the statue of God? What temple should I build for him, when this whole world, fashioned by his work, cannot contain him? And when I, a human being, remain more spacious, shall I enclose the power of such majesty within a single small shrine? Is it not better that he be dedicated in our mind, consecrated in our inmost heart?" Arnobius at the beginning of the sixth book against the Gentiles: "In this part, he says, you are accustomed to attach to us the greatest crime of impiety, because we do not construct sacred buildings for the duties of veneration, do not set up any statue or image of a god, do not build altars, etc. We cease either to build or to make these things, etc. Do we dishonor God with shrines or the construction of temples?" Lactantius, book II, chapter 2: "What do temples mean? What do altars mean? What, finally, do the statues themselves, which are either monuments of the dead or of the absent?" Also at the end of the book *On the Anger of God*: "Let God, he says, be consecrated for us not in temples, but in our heart."
A Olympus, sculpted by Phidias, cannot even be compared to him who is constructed according to the image of the Creator of God. But all things which are in created things are far more perfect, and in our Savior, who says: "The Father is in me," the image is far better and superior to everything in all creation.
18. There is also in individual just men, in so far as they are capable of imitating him, an image according to the image of the Creator, which they form, when they contemplate God with a pure heart, and become imitators of God. In sum, all Christians attempt to erect altars and images, the nature of which we have explained, not inanimate and devoid of sense, nor dedicated to the inanimate things of demons, but suitable for receiving the Spirit of God in the aforementioned images of the virtues, and in the soul conformed to the image of the Creator as in its own proper dwelling; and in this way also the Spirit of Christ resides in them, so that I may so speak, in those who are conformed to him. And wishing to set forth such things, the Word of God, though God, presents Himself as promising these things to the just, saying: "I will dwell in them, and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people"; B and of the Savior: "If anyone hears my words and keeps them, I and my Father will come to him, and we will make our abode with him." Let him, therefore, who wishes to compare, consider these altars of which I have spoken, with the altars which Celsus mentions; and the images in those who piously worship the supreme God with their souls, with the images of Phidias, Polycletus, and those like them; then he will clearly see that the latter are inanimate and subject to the injuries of time, but the former remain in an immortal soul, as long as the soul endowed with reason wishes to remain in it.
19. Now if it is necessary to compare temples with temples, so that we may refute the followers of Celsus who by no means shrink from demanding temples that would be suitable for the aforementioned images and altars which we avoid, or rather which we turn away from for the sake of the Lifegiver of all, C demanding inanimate and dead temples, let him who wishes hear what we are taught: that our bodies are the temple of God, and if anyone through licentiousness of sin destroys the temple of God, this person is truly wicked, for the true God will destroy him. But of all things that are so called temples, the best and most distinguished in this sense is the pure and holy body of our Savior Jesus Christ; who, when he knew that those who were impious against the temple of God, which was in him, could plan plots, although it was not his will that the intention of those who were planning to destroy the temple of God would be stronger than his divinity, he said to them: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." This, however, he was saying about D
the temple of his body. And furthermore, the divine A words, also teaching in a mystical way those who are able to hear regarding the resurrection to those who are able to hear the divine word of God, say that one must be built up with stones, living and most precious; hinting that each of those who are gathered together by his word into the piety of the temple is himself a precious stone of God. As it is said by Peter: «You B also are built up as living stones, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ»; and by Paul: «Built up C upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone.» A mystical meaning of such a kind also has that which is in Isaiah, being spoken thusly, and addressed as to Jerusalem: «Behold, I prepare for thee a carbuncle stone, and thy foundations with sapphire, and I will place thy bulwarks jasper and thy porches crystal stones, and thy circuit desirable stones, and all thy sons taught by God, and in much peace thy children D and in justice thou shalt be built.»
20. Therefore, just as some of the just are carbuncle, and others sapphire, others jasper, and others crystal, in this way every kind of chosen and precious stone are the just. But as for how the nature of these stones is to be understood, and to what kind of souls the name of a precious stone can refer, that is for the present time to explain. It is sufficient only to be reminded that what are called temples among us, and what that temple of God constructed of precious stones signifies. For just as when in individual cities, because the temples commonly accepted by the multitude are held in contempt by others who boast of having more beautiful ones, they would describe the elegance of their own temples and argue that those which others have are inferior; so we, to those who accuse us because we think it necessary in temples to worship God who is beyond the power of sense, while we reject those which are temples among us and show to those who are indeed without sense, that they themselves, being devoid of sense, do not have any comparison of our statues among the statues of the Gentiles; nor do we compare our altars and incense, so to speak, with their altars, fat, and blood; nor can the temples presented to us be compared with the temples deprived of the divine sense by men who admire the things of sense; for it does not even enter the mind of those for whom it is thought to be a divine sense, which the sense of God perceives, and of those things which are suitable to God. Therefore, 758 we do not recoil from erecting altars, statues, and temples, because we believe these to be hidden and secret signals of a society that exists between us; but rather, having found through Jesus the teaching of the way to the divine
we flee from whatever makes those who have departed from the worship constituted by Jesus Christ godless under the guise of piety. For He alone is the way to the divine, truly saying, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life."
B 21. Let us now see what Celsus says after this about God, and how he exhorts us to use those things which are indeed true idols, or, to speak as he does, offerings to demons, though he himself is ignorant of what is truly divine, and what kind of sacrifices these are, and which are the sacrifices prescribed by Him. For he says things such as these: "God is common to all, he is good and without need, and free from envy; what then prevents us from participating in the public festivals, especially those which are most dedicated to him?" I do not know how he has brought into his mind the notion that it follows from the fact that God is good and without need and free from envy, that we ought to participate in these public festivals. And I say that, if it followed from the fact that God is good, without need, and free from envy, that one should participate in these same public festivals, it would [also] have been proved that these public festivals have nothing erroneous in them, and that they were ordained by those who know God, as a consequence of worship and piety toward Him. But if these public festivals, which are so called, have no legitimate proof of being appropriate to divine worship, but are shown to be mere fabrications, instituted anyhow on account of some human histories, or because of the fruits of the earth or the particular fruits being produced at that time, it is clear that those who desire to worship the divine with discernment are right to avoid participating in these public festivals. For a feast, as someone among the Greek sages says with good reason, is nothing else than "doing what is necessary;" and he who celebrates truly, celebrates by doing what is necessary, and by praying, and by offering at all times bloodless sacrifices in his prayers to the Divine. And C I think, in noble language, it was said to me by Paul: "You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have labored for you in vain" (Gal. IV, 10, 11).
22. But if anyone opposes these things regarding the Lord's days, the preparations, the Passover, or the Pentecostal days which we observe, it is to be said to this, that the perfect Christian, always being in the words and works and thoughts of the Word of God, is always in His days, and is always keeping the Lord's days. But also, he who is continually preparing himself for the true life, and who is abstaining from the pleasures of this life by which many are deceived, who do not feed on the justice of the flesh, but on heart-
-A temple of His body. 73 Furthermore, the divine scriptures, teaching the mystery of the resurrection to those who are able to hear with a more divine hearing, say that the destroyed temple will be rebuilt of living and most precious stones, hinting that every one of those who breathe together through the same Word into the piety according to Him is a precious stone of the whole temple of God. Wherefore it is said by Peter: *But you are built as living stones, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ* 74; and by Paul: *Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus our Lord himself being the chief cornerstone*. B Isaiah’s words, directed as it were to Jerusalem, also have a certain mystical meaning of this kind: *Behold, I will prepare for thee a carbuncle for thy stone, and thy foundations with sapphires, and I will place thy bulwarks with jasper, and thy gates with stones of crystal, and thy circuit with desirable stones, and all thy sons shall be taught of God, and in great peace shall thy children be, and in righteousness shalt thou be built*. There are, therefore, some among the just who are a carbuncle stone, others a sapphire, others jasper, and others crystal; and thus the just are every genus of chosen and precious stones. C But the meaning regarding stones, and the doctrine of their nature, and to what sort of souls the name of "precious stone" can be referred, it is not the time at present to explain. It was only necessary to remind you briefly of the intention concerning the temples among us, and the one temple of God constructed from precious stones. For just as, if individuals in their respective cities were boastful among others because of the temples commonly accepted, those who took pride in the more precious temples would describe the excellence of their own in order to refute the inferior ones; so we, to those who blame us because we do not think we ought to worship the Divine in temples lacking sensation, set against them the temples among us, and D we demonstrate to those who are not themselves devoid of sensation, nor similar to their own senseless gods, that there is no comparison between our images and the images of the nations, nor between our altars and—if I may so call them—our incense and those altars of theirs, and the fat and blood among them; nor even between the temples accepted by us and the temples of those devoid of sensation, which are admired by men devoid of sensation, who have not even imagined the divine sensation by which someone senses God, together with the images, temples, and altars which are proper to God. 75 76 Therefore, we do not shrink from erecting altars, images, and temples precisely because this is the token of our hidden and secret communion; but because, having found through the teaching of Jesus...
the manner of worshipping God, we flee whatever makes, by the mere phantom of piety, those who are led astray from the piety that is through Jesus Christ; for He is alone the way of piety, truly saying: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." Let us also see what follows, spoken by Celsus concerning God, and how he exhorts us to the use of things offered in truth to idols, or—that I may so name it—offered to demons, though as he himself might designate it—since he is ignorant of what is truly sacred and of what kind are the sacrifices with Him—offered to God; and the things he says are as follows: "But God is common to all, and is good, and is in need of nothing, and is void of envy. What then hinders those who are most especially consecrated to Him from partaking also in the public festivals?" I do not know what he has imagined to himself, that he thinks it follows from God being good, and in need of nothing, and void of envy, that those who are consecrated to Him should partake in the public festivals. And I say that it would indeed follow from God being good, and in need of nothing, and void of envy, that one should partake B of those very public festivals, if it were proven that those public festivals have nothing erroneous in them, and were instituted based on the contemplation of God as being consequent to the service and piety toward Him. But if those public festivals, which are feasts in name only, have no proof that they are fitting for the service of the Divine, but are exposed as figments of those who have instituted them as the occasion demanded, for the sake of certain human histories, or for the sake of natural theories concerning water or earth or the fruits arising from it, it is clear that those who desire to worship the Divine with scrutiny would act with reason in not partaking in the public festivals. For a festival, as one of the Greek sages also says, and speaks well, is nothing else than "doing one’s duty"; and he keeps feast in truth who performs his duties, [and] praying always, at all times offers the unbloody C sacrifices in his prayers to the Divine. Wherefore also it seems to me that it was most magnificently spoken by Paul: "You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." But if anyone should object against these things regarding the Sundays, or the preparation days, or those of Pentecost that occur in our midst by the passing of days, it must be said even to this, that the perfect [Christian], who is always in the words, and the deeds, and the thoughts of the Word of God who is by nature Lord, is always in His days, and always keeps Lord's days. But also, he is always preparing himself for the truly living life, and abstaining from the pleasures of life [by which the many are deceived], and not feeding the mind of the flesh, but beating his body black and blue and...
subjugating it, for him every day is the Preparation. He also who considers that "Christ our Pascha" A has been sacrificed for us, and that one ought to observe the feast by eating of the flesh of the Word, always celebrates the Pascha, which is interpreted as "passages," passing over in his thought, and every word, and every deed, from the things of this life to God, and hastening toward His city. Furthermore, he who is able to say with truth, "We have risen together with Christ," and also, "He raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ," B is always in the days of Pentecost; and especially when, like the apostles of Jesus, he goes up into the upper room and devotes himself to supplication and prayer, so that he may be worthy to receive the mighty rushing wind from heaven, which has the power to destroy the wickedness in men and all that arises from it; and may he be worthy, too, of having some share of a tongue of fire from God bestowed upon him. But the multitude of those who seem to believe, and who are not yet of such stature, stand in need, for the sake of recollection, of sensible examples, that they may not entirely let these things slip. I think Paul had these things in mind when he called a feast that recurs on set days a "part of a feast" C; for he hints by that expression that a life that is always in accordance with the divine Word is not in a "part" of a feast, but is in a whole and never-failing feast. Consider, then, again, whether these feasts of ours, when compared with the public feasts of Celsus and the nations, are not by far more holy than those public ones, in which the mind of the flesh, in celebrating its feast, runs riot, turning aside into drunkenness and debauchery. It would be a long task to explain now why the feasts according to the law of God teach one to eat the "bread of affliction," D or "unleavened bread with bitter herbs"; 1 or why it says, "Humble your souls," and other things similar to these. For it is not possible for the composite man—since "the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh" 2—to keep the feast with his whole being. For either he who is keeping the feast in the Spirit afflicts the body, so that it does not, by the mind of the flesh, prevent him from keeping the feast with the Spirit; or he who celebrates according to the flesh cannot at the same time possess the feast according to the Spirit. But let these things suffice regarding the discourse on feasts for the present.
Let us now see the words Celsus uses in urging us to make use of things sacrificed to idols and to participate in the public sacrifices during public feasts. What he says is of this kind: "If they are nothing, what harm is there in partaking of the common meal? But if there are any demons, it is manifest that these too are of [1556 A] God..."
⟪A the benevolence, confidently, so that he can say that he will suffer nothing from the whole host of demons: The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life; from whom shall I tremble? B And he will say, if an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear. So much for this; but if there are some demons, it is evident that even these belong to God, to whom we ought to give credence, and offer sacrifices according to the laws, and pray, so that they may be benevolent.⟫
28. Now let us read what follows and weigh it again according to our strength. He speaks as follows: If there are laws of some ancestors that forbid being partakers of certain victims, one must absolutely abstain even from the eating of all animals. This, indeed, pleased Pythagoras, who honored the soul and its organs; B for they say, so that one might not sit at the table of demons, I admire their wisdom, who have finally noticed that they are always eating with demons, and then they only observe this when they see a victim being slaughtered. But when they eat grain, and drink wine, and taste crops, and breathe the same air, they do not receive each of these things from certain demons, to whom the task of each has been assigned? I do not know how this seemed consistent to Celsus, or how he says that what he commanded—that one should abstain from certain victims according to the laws of some ancestors—should extend to the eating of all animals. And we say this, even when such things are suggested for the sake of the Word of God, and for the sake of a more secure and pure life: it is good not to eat meat, nor drink wine, nor that in which your brother stumbles. C And again: Let not your food destroy him for whom Christ died, and again: If meat scandalizes my brother, I will not eat meat for ever, that I may not scandalize my brother.
29. It must be known, however, that since the Jews think they understand the Law of Moses, and keep it regarding foods, in that they consume what to them are deemed "pure" and abstain from the "impure," and furthermore that they should not use the blood of an animal as food, nor that which is torn by wild beasts, and other [prohibitions]—about which there is much discourse, and which is not now convenient to examine—the teaching of Jesus, desiring to call all men to pure piety, and by proposing a more mature regulation concerning foods, checking many of those who could be benefited to go on to Christianity, declared that: D Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man, but what proceeds out of the mouth; for that which enters into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the sewer, but that which comes out of the mouth are evil thoughts which are spoken, murders, adulteries, fornications.
But if there were certain demons, it is manifest that these too are of God; A or let him who wishes demonstrate that the distinction between men and angels is not a sound argument, or that an argument of similar weight can be sustained regarding demons. But if this is impossible, it is manifest that the demons do not belong to God. For God is not their prince, but, as the divine Words say, Beelzebul. Nor is one to believe in demons, even if Celsus urges us to this [(90)]; but one ought rather to die than be persuaded by demons, and one ought to endure anything whatever in obedience to God [(91)]. Thus, neither should one offer sacrifice to demons; for it is impossible to sacrifice to those who are wicked and harmful to men. But according to what laws does Celsus wish us to sacrifice to demons? For if he means according to the laws established in the cities, let him demonstrate that they conform to the divine laws; but if he cannot do this—for the laws of many cities do not even agree with one another [(92)]—it is evident that they are not properly laws, or that they are the laws of the wicked, to which one should not give credence; for one ought to obey God rather than men. Away, then, with that counsel of Celsus, which says that we ought to pray [(93)] to demons; and not even in the slightest degree should one listen to it; for one ought to pray only to the God over all, and one ought also to pray to the Only-Begotten, and First-Born of every creature, the Word of God, and one ought to petition him, as our high priest, to bring the prayer that has reached him from us up to his God and our God, and his Father and the Father of those who live according to the Word of God. And just as we would not want to have as well-disposed towards us those men who wish us to live according to their own wickedness, if they are not well-disposed to anyone who chooses things contrary to them—since their goodwill would make us enemies of God, who perhaps does not become well-disposed toward those who wish to have such men as friends—in the same way, those who have understood the nature, the intention, and the wickedness of demons, would never wish to have the demons well-disposed toward them. For not even if the demons were not well-disposed toward them could they suffer anything from them, being guarded by the God over all, who is well-disposed toward them because of their piety, and who stations his divine angels over those who are worthy of being guarded, so that they might suffer nothing from the demons. But he who has the God over all well-disposed to him through his piety toward Him, and because he has accepted the Lord Jesus, the Angel of the great counsel of God 48, being content with the [grace] of God through Chri- [the remainder of the page is textual apparatus and citations]
Christ Jesus, might say with confidence, as one who will suffer nothing from the entire army of demons: "The Lord is my light and my savior, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life, of whom shall I be afraid?" He will also say this: "If a camp should be arrayed against me, my heart shall not fear." So much for the remark, "If there are any demons, clearly these also are God's, and they must be believed, and honored according to the laws, and prayed to, so that they may be favorable."
But let us set forth the next passage, and let us examine it again to the best of our ability, as it is: "If indeed they abstain from such sacrifices according to some ancestral custom, they ought by all means to abstain also from the eating of all animals, as is the opinion of Pythagoras, who shows reverence for the soul and its organs. But if, as they say, they abstain so that they may not feast with demons, I admire their wisdom, that they are slow to perceive that they are always feasting with demons; and only then do they guard against this, when they see a victim being sacrificed. But when they eat grain, and drink wine, and taste fruits, and drink water itself, and breathe the very air, do they not receive each of these things from certain demons, to whom the care of each has been assigned in parts?"
I do not know how it appeared to him to follow that they must abstain from the eating of all animals, whom he had named as abstaining from certain sacrifices according to some ancestral custom. And we do not say this as if the divine Word does not suggest similar things, and for the sake of a safer and purer life does not say: "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything in which your brother stumbles." And again: "Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died." And again: "If food scandalizes my brother, I will never eat flesh, that I may not scandalize my brother."
It must be known, however, that the Jews, imagining that they understand the law of Moses, and observing regarding foods that they eat of what is considered pure by them, but abstain from the unclean, and also do not use the blood of an animal for food, nor animals torn by beasts, and other things concerning which there is much to say—and for this reason is not now opportune to examine—the teaching of Jesus, wishing to call all men unto pure piety, and not to hinder many who could be benefited in their morals by Christianity through the pretext of a heavier legislation concerning foods, declared that, "Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth." For the things that enter into the mouth, he says, go into the belly, and are cast out into the drain; but the things that go out of the mouth are evil thoughts which are spoken, murders, and adulteries, and fornications, and thefts, and false testimonies, and...
blasphemies. And Paul also says: "Food will not commend us to God; for neither if we eat, do we abound; nor if we do not eat, do we fall short." Then, since these things have a certain obscurity if they do not happen to be explained, it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus, and to the presbyters gathered together for this purpose in Antioch, and, as they themselves named it, to the Holy Spirit, to write to those who believed from the nations a letter, commanding them to abstain only from such things, the absence of which was necessary. Now these things are: things sacrificed to idols, or things strangled, or blood. For that which is offered to idols is sacrificed to demons; and it does not behove the man of God to become a participant in the table of demons. Logic prohibits the consumption of things strangled A in which the blood has not been drained—which they say is the food of demons, who are nourished by the exhalations from it—that we might not be nourished by the food of demons; perhaps because some such spirits might be nourished along with us, if we partake of things strangled. And from what has been said concerning things strangled, the reason regarding the abstinence from blood can be clear. And it would not be unreasonable, as I find myself in this place, to mention a most graceful remark, which many Christians also encounter as it is recorded in the Sentences of Sextus, which states: "The use of living creatures is indifferent, but forgoing them is more rational." We do not, therefore, simply abstain from things reputed to be sacred victims offered to those who are called gods, or heroes, or demons, because of some ancestral custom, but for several reasons, of which I have set forth a few in part. But neither, as B If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of the priestly [order] at all, shall eat flesh in its blood, or caught by a wild beast, or that which died of itself, let him be deposed; for the law also has forbidden this. But if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. For it is not even lawful for human beings to touch blood, to whom the body is nothing else but flesh nourished by blood. The human blood has partaken of the Word, and shares in the grace of the Spirit; and if any one shall injure them, he shall not escape. How could such people eat children, to whom it is not even permitted to eat the blood of irrational animals? the manners, the places.
Further, we are not to abstain from the eating of all animals, just as we must abstain from all vice and from those things which proceed from vice. And not only must we abstain from the eating of animals, but we should abstain from any food whatever if the use of it were joined with vice or with anything that follows from vice. For we must abstain from the use of food to which the passion of gluttony or pleasure would drive us, without the purpose of consulting for the health and healing of the body. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the soul migrates from body to body, nor that it is cast down to the condition of irrational animals. Therefore, even if we occasionally abstain from animals, we do not shun their flesh for the same reason as Pythagoras. For among us, only the soul endowed with reason is held in honor, and its organs are with honor committed to burial, as is established among us. For it is not fitting that the dwelling-place of a soul endowed with reason should be cast away indecorously and anywhere at all, like the carcass of irrational animals; especially since those who honor the body, where a soul endowed with reason has dwelt, are persuaded that this honor redounds to Him who received the soul that finely used such an instrument. B Regarding how the dead arise, and with what body they come, we have explained this above in a few words, as the nature of this writing demanded.
After this, Celsus sets down what is acknowledged by Christians and Jews, who, when giving an account of why they abstain from things sacrificed to idols, say that those who are consecrated to the supreme God ought not to feast with demons. Regarding this, he brings forward what I have recorded. We, at any rate, as far as food and drink are concerned, know no other way of feasting with demons than when one eats of the meats which are sacrificed in what many call "sacred rites," and drinks the wine which has been poured out in libation to demons. But Celsus believes that one feasts with demons even if one eats grain, and in whatever way one drinks wine, or tastes fruits, or even if one draws only water; he says that this very thing is to feast with demons. He adds that the air itself, which is breathed, is received from certain demons, since those demons who are set over the air provide that air to living creatures. Let him who wishes agree with this opinion of Celsus, and let him prove that it is not rather divine angels of God, but demons—whose entire race is wicked—who are set in charge to govern all the things mentioned. But we say that without the protection of invisible, if I may so speak, husbandmen and other administrators, who provide not only for the produce of the earth but also for water and air, the earth would not bring forth those things which are said to be governed by nature, the water in the springs, and the rivers flowing of their own accord.
A We do not, however, say that these are invisible demons; but, if one must be bold enough to say it, if these things are the works of demons, we shall say that famines, and the failure of vines and fruit trees, and droughts, and also the corruption of the air to the ruin of the crops, and sometimes death to animals and pestilence to men—all these are carried out by demons as executioners, having received for a time the power to effect these things by divine judgment, whether for the correction of men who have slipped down into the abyss of wickedness, or for the training of the rational race; so that those who remain pious even in such circumstances, and do not become worse, may at last become manifest to spectators both invisible and visible, who were not looking at their disposition; while those who are differently disposed, hiding their malice, are exposed by the things that happen, so that they might both feel what they are themselves and become plain to the spectators, if I may so call them. The Psalmist testifies B that more grievous things are executed by divine judgment through certain evil angels: "He sent upon them the heat of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and distress, a mission through evil angels." [PS. LXXVII, 49.] And if anything else happens beyond these when demons are permitted—who indeed always wish to do these things, but cannot always because they are hindered—let the one who is able examine the divine judgment, imagining it, as far as human nature allows, concerning the sudden departure of many souls from the body, using such paths as lead to a middle-death. For the judgments of God are great, and because of their magnitude they cannot be grasped by a mind still bound to a mortal body; hence they are difficult to explain, and to untrained souls not even to the slightest degree observable. Hence it is that the more rash, through ignorance of these things and through rashness against the divine governance, C increase impious opinions against Providence. We do not, therefore, receive anything for the needs of life from demons, especially we who have learned to use them in the proper manner; nor do those who partake of grain, and wine, and fruit, and water, and air, banquet with demons, but rather with the divine angels who are set over such things, who are, as it were, called to the table of the pious man, who has heard the teaching word: "Whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." [I COR. X, 31.] And again in another place it is written: "Do all in the name of God." [COLOSS. III, 17.] Since, therefore, we eat, and drink, and breathe to the glory of God, and do all things according to the Word,
A we do not feast with any of the demons, but with the divine angels. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected which is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. It would not be good, nor could it be sanctified, if, as Celsus thinks, these things had been entrusted to demons. From these things it is clear that we have replied to the points he made next in the following way: "If, therefore, one must not live at all, nor enter into this life, or if he who has entered into this life must give thanks to the demons who have been allotted the things on earth, and offer them first-fruits and prayers as long as we live, so that we may find them to be benevolent." And so we must live, and we must live according to the word of God, as far as it is possible and granted to live according to it; and it is granted when, either we eat or drink, we do all things to the glory of God. And we must not refuse to use, with thanksgiving to the Creator, those things which were created for our sake. And it is rather for these conditions that we were brought by God into life than for those which Celsus imagines; and we are not subject to demons, but to the God over all through Jesus Christ who brought us to him. And according to the laws of God, no demon has been allotted the things on earth; but because of their own lawlessness, perhaps they took for themselves areas where there is desolation of the knowledge of God and of the life according to Him, or where there are many who are alien to the Divinity; or perhaps, as they are worthy of being overseers and punishers of the wicked, they were appointed by the Word who governs all things to rule over those who have subjected themselves to wickedness and not to God. And for such reasons, let Celsus, as one who does not know God, give his thanks to the demons; but we, giving thanks to the Creator of the universe, also eat the loaves offered with thanksgiving and prayer for what has been given, which through the prayer become a certain holy body, which sanctifies those who use it with a sound purpose. But also, while Celsus wishes to dedicate first-fruits to the demons, we dedicate them to Him who said: "Let the earth bring forth grass, yielding seed according to its kind and likeness, and fruit-bearing timber making fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind upon the earth." And to Him to whom we give the first-fruits, to Him we also send up our prayers, having a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God; and we hold fast to our confession as long as we live, finding God to be benevolent, and His Only-Begotten who is revealed to us in Jesus. If, moreover, we desire a multitude of those towards whom we wish to be benevolent, we are taught, B as ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand minis…
ministered unto Him. For these, seeing those who imitate their own piety towards God and who invoke God and pray to Him sincerely as kinsmen and friends, labor together for the salvation of those who call upon God and offer their prayers to Him to whom they themselves also offer theirs. For they are all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. Therefore, let the wise men of the Greeks say which of the two options I should answer, from what I was just saying regarding the two, which is the more becoming and the better.
[The Doctrine of Demons and the Choice of Virtue]
To every man there stands beside him, even from his birth, a Good Guide to lead his life; for a demon must not be thought to be evil, who harms a good life. For it is not as Menander says: "To every man there stands beside him, even from his birth, a Good Guide to lead his life." But rather, as Empedocles says, there are two, as it were, that take hold of and govern each one of us at our birth: "There were both those of the earth..." And since all souls have to make use of these lives, just as a lot, they must approach Lachesis in an orderly manner; and she assigns to each one the demon he chose, to be the guardian of his life and the accomplisher of the things chosen. The Attics say it was made known to Socrates that a demon accompanied him; and Aristotle says that all men use demons, which accompany them during the time of their incarnation; having received this teaching from the profits, and having deposited it in his own books, he did not acknowledge from where he had stolen this speech. Who, then, is the demon that is also here? And who is the God, or the one who is here? For what operates, this leads each one, whenever it is leading also from here. Is this, therefore, the demon that had been allotted to the living person, or not? But it is that which is before it; for this stands over it while at rest. But that which comes after it operates; and we are that which operates, as the senses, and the demon is the rational part; but if we live according to reason, the demon is that which is above this, resting and granting to the one who is working. It is rightly said, therefore, that we shall choose; for we choose the one who is placed over us according to our life. It is said thus, as if each one of the dead is led by his own demon, which had been allotted to him while living, to a certain place where those who have been gathered and judged must go to Hades. "By force and with difficulty it is led away by the assigned demon." These things being so by nature, when the dead have reached the place where the demon brings each one, [it is the speech of] the daughter of Necessity, the maiden Lachesis: "Ephemeral souls, this is the beginning of another cycle of a mortal, death-bringing race; a demon shall not choose you, but you shall choose a demon. Let him who drew the first lot be the first to choose a life, with which he shall necessarily be united. Virtue is masterless, which he who honors or dishonors shall have more or less of according to his own choosing."A For every soul has God as its overseer. To every one who has believed in the Lord, an angel attends, unless we drive him away by our wicked deeds; for just as smoke puts bees to flight, and stench drives away doves, so does a tearful and foul-smelling sin drive away the angel who is the guardian of our life.
The human soul was allotted demons from its birth; but Jesus taught us not to despise even the least of those in the Church, saying that their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. And the Prophet also says that the angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him, and shall deliver them. B We therefore do not deny that there are many demons on earth, but we say that they both exist and have power over the wicked because of their own wickedness, yet that they have no power against those who have put on the whole armor of God, and have taken up strength to stand against the wiles of the devil, and are always practicing the wrestlings of those powers, knowing that our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places.
Let us consider also another statement of Celsus, which runs as follows: If a satrap, or a prelate, or a general, or a procurator of the King of the Persians or of the Romans, or even those who hold lesser offices or cares or services, can do great C harm if they are neglected, are those aerial and earthly satraps and ministers to cause little harm if they are insulted? See then how he introduces among the satraps, prelates, generals, procurators, and those who hold smaller offices and charges and services, of the God over all, people who inflict great harm on those who insult them, not seeing that not even a wise human being would wish to harm anyone, but as far as it is in his power, he exerts himself to turn even those who insult him back to a better state; unless, perhaps, the satraps, prelates, and generals of the God over all, according to Celsus, are worse than Lycurgus the lawgiver of the Lacedaemonians, and Zeno of Citium; for Lycurgus, when he had received the power to punish the man who had gouged out D his eye, not only did not take vengeance, but he also did not cease enchanting him with his words, until...
he had persuaded him to study philosophy. And Zeno, replying to someone who said, "May I perish if I do not take vengeance on you!" said, "And may I perish if I do not make you my friend!" And I do not even speak of those who, having been formed according to the teaching of Jesus, have heard it said: "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." And in the prophetic discourses, the righteous man also speaks thus: "O Lord my God, if I have done this, if there is iniquity in my hands, if I have repaid evil to those who return evil to me, may I then fall empty before my enemies; may the enemy pursue my soul, and overtake it, and trample my life into the ground." B
36. Nor indeed do the angels, who are the true satraps, presidents, commanders, and procurators of God, inflict evils, as Celsus thinks, upon those from whom the injury to them has arisen. But if certain demons, whom Celsus also had in mind, do inflict evils, they do so as wicked beings, having received no satrapy, or command, or procuratorship from God. And they even injure those who subject and submit themselves to them as if they were masters. Hence, it seems, it happens that those who partake of foods forbidden by the laws of their places, if they are subject to those demons, pay the penalty; but if they are not under them, and have not submitted themselves to the demon of the place, being released from the fear of punishment, they may command those demons to begone; although, if they have subjected themselves to others through ignorance of other matters, they may be liable to their vengeance. But the Christian—the true Christian, I say—who subjects himself solely to the command of God and His Word, since he is superior to the demons, can suffer nothing from the demons. The reason for this is that "the angel of the Lord shall encamp round about those who fear Him, C and shall deliver them," and his angel, "who always beholds the face of the heavenly Father," always offers his prayers through the one high priest to the God of all, and himself prays along with him to whom he has been entrusted to care for. Let not Celsus, therefore, terrify us with empty phantoms, threatening that we shall suffer punishment from the demons, whom we count as nothing. For demons who are despised can do nothing to hurt us, who have been consecrated to Him who alone is able to help all who are worthy, and who furthermore appoints His own angels for the pious, so that neither the adversary angels, nor their prince—called the prince of this world—can avail anything against those who have been consecrated to God. D
A Then, forgetting that he is speaking to Christians, who pray to God alone through Jesus, and confusing the matters of others, and irrationally attributing these things to Christians, he says: "If one calls upon them by barbarian names, they will possess power; but if by Greek or Roman names, they will not." Let him demonstrate who it is that we call upon by a barbarian name, as if summoning him to our aid; and let him be persuaded that Celsus has said these things against us in vain; observing that the rest of the Christians, when praying, do not even use the very names laid down in the divine Scriptures for God. But the Greeks use Greek names, and the Romans use Roman names, and thus each one prays to God and praises Him in his own language as he is able. And the Lord of every language hears those who pray in every language, B hearing (if I may so speak) as one voice that which is expressed in different languages in respect of the meanings. For the God over all is not one of those who have been allotted some barbarian or Greek language, and who are ignorant of the rest, and no longer care for those who speak in other languages.
After this, having heard either no Christian, or someone lawless and uneducated from among the many, he says that Christians say: "Behold, standing by the image of Zeus, or Apollo, or any other god, I blaspheme, and I strike it, and it does not defend itself." C He does not see that in the divine law it is commanded among other things: "You shall not speak ill of gods," so that our mouth may not become accustomed to speaking ill of anyone, when we hear, "Bless, and do not curse," and when we are taught that those who are slanderous "will not inherit the kingdom of God." And who among us is so foolish as to say these things, and not see that such insults are of no avail for the overthrow of the opinion held concerning the so-called gods? Since there have been men who, although they did not recognize God at all and denied Providence, and through their base and impious doctrines gave rise to the sects of those who are considered philosophers, D yet neither they themselves have suffered the evils which the common people suppose, nor have those who have embraced their doctrines; rather, they even grow rich and are healthy in body. But if anyone seeks damage in them, let him observe that they are truly damaged. For what greater damage is there than not to understand the Maker from the order of the world? And what worse misery is there than to have a blinded mind, and not to see the Maker and Father of all?
59. By attributing to us such words as by no means suit Christians, and by slandering us as though we said such things, he thinks he has prepared a defense for himself, though it is more of a mockery than a defense. In it he says to us: "Do you not see, my good man, that someone could stand up and not only insult your demon, but also drive him out of every land and sea, and bind you, who are consecrated to him like a statue, in chains, and drag you off to punishment, and nail you to a cross; and yet that demon, or, as you say, that Son of God, does not defend himself against this?" This defense might have some place if we actually used the words he attributes to us. And yet, even then, he would not be speaking the truth when he calls the Son of God a demon. For us, who say that all demons are evil, the one who turned so many men toward God is not a demon, but God the Word and the Son of God. But Celsus, who nowhere signified that he acknowledges demons as evil, I know not how, forgetful of himself, calls Jesus a demon. Nevertheless, the penalties threatened against the impious will eventually overtake those who, after all the remedies they have rejected, are found in what I might call an incurable wickedness. B
40. And we indeed, whatever we say concerning punishment, turn many from their sins through this doctrine of punishment. But let us consider what that person, whom Celsus calls a priest of Apollo or Jupiter, might answer.
"Sero," he says, "molunt deorum molæ," and: "In natos natorum et qui nascentur ab illis."
See how much better the following is: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but each shall die for his own sin." And this: "The teeth of him who eats the sour grape shall be set on edge." And that: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the justice of the righteous shall be upon him, and the lawlessness of the lawless shall be upon him." But if anyone should say that that oracle, "In natos natorum et qui nascentur ab illis," is similar to this, "Who visits the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," let him learn from Ezekiel that this is a proverb, by which He reproves those who say: "The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge." To which it is added: "As I live, says the Lord, everyone shall die for his own sin." What, moreover, of the proverb concerning D the [millstones]... [alt-version omitted]
A regarding the sins being rendered unto the third and fourth generation, it is not the time at present to explain.
41. Following this, he speaks like a scolding old crone: "You," he says, "mock the images of these gods and hold them in derision: yet had you reviled Bacchus himself or Hercules if he were present, perhaps you would not have departed unharmed. But those who seized and punished your God when he was present, those who did these things have suffered nothing; nor has anything new happened to the believer since that time, which would make him believe that he was not an impostor, but the Son of God! And the one who sent the Son for the sake of certain messages, and who saw him so cruelly tortured that the messages perished along with him, did he neglect him, and has he not yet awakened after so many centuries have passed? Who is such an inhuman father?" B But, you say, "he was not affected by insults, unless perhaps he willed it." Yet it is permitted to say of those whom you revile with injuries, that they also wished to be treated in this way, and therefore bore the injuries with an even mind. For it is best to compare equal things with equal things. And yet, those [gods of yours] severely punish the reviler, who therefore either flees and hides, or is caught and dragged to punishment. To this I reply that we revile no one. For we know that "revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. vi, 10); and we read: "Pray for those who curse you" (Matth. v, 44); and: "Bless and do not curse" (Rom. xii, 14). We also know this: "Being reviled, we bless." And indeed, if reviling has a certain rationale of vengeance for him who considers himself injured, and even this the Word of God does not permit us, how much less is it fitting to revile when doing so shows great foolishness? C It is equally foolish to revile a stone, or gold, or silver shaped into the form that those who are far from Divinity consider to be the form of gods. Nor do we hold the inanimate images in derision, but rather those who pay them worship. But neither, if certain demons reside in some images, of whom one is thought to be Bacchus and another Hercules, do we direct insults at them. For such a thing is vain, and in no way befitting the man who is meek and peaceful and calm in his soul, and who has learned that one must not revile anyone at all, no matter how wicked he may be, whether he be a man or a demon.
42. I do not know how Celsus has unwittingly fallen into the position of showing that those whom he had praised a short while ago as demons or gods are now, in actual fact, D the most vile, since they punish more out of a desire for vengeance than with a mind to correct, if anyone reviles them. For he says,
A *If you had reviled Bacchus himself or Hercules when present, perhaps you would not have departed unharmed.* But let him who wishes explain how one who is absent can hear anything; why he is sometimes absent and sometimes present; and what business forces demons to migrate from place to place. After this, thinking that by our calling the body of Jesus—which was stretched and tortured—God, we do not refer to his divinity, but that he was held to be God when he was being stretched and tortured, he says: *But those who stretched out and tortured your present God suffered no evil because of such a deed.* Since we have already discussed more fully the things Jesus suffered as a man, we prefer to keep silent on this matter now, lest we appear to be repeating the same things too often. However, since he says that those who subjected Jesus to punishment suffered no evil even a long time afterward, we shall show him and all who desire to learn that the city in which the Jewish populace demanded that Jesus be nailed to the cross, crying out, *Crucify, crucify him,* (Luc. xxiii, 21), and who chose to have the robber—who had been cast into prison for sedition and murder—released, but for Jesus to be crucified through envy, was not long after surrounded by a siege, and after being besieged for a long time, was so utterly destroyed from its foundations and left desolate, as God judged those who dwelt in that place unworthy even of a common life. And yet, if I may say something incredible, B He spared them even when He handed them over to their enemies, since He saw that they could not be recalled to a saner life by any means, and were growing in wickedness day by day. And the cause of these evils for them was the blood of Jesus, shed through their plots upon the earth, which could no longer sustain those guilty of so great a crime.
43. Something new, therefore, has come to pass from the time that Jesus suffered, and that is this: I mean what has happened toward the city, what has happened toward the whole nation, and what has happened toward the sudden emergence of the nation of Christians, which seems to have been born as if all at once. And it is also a new thing that those who were aliens from the covenants of God, and had no part in the promises, and were far from the truth, have nonetheless embraced that truth by a certain divine power. This, in truth, is not the work of a deceitful man, but the work of God, who sent His own Word, which was in Jesus, to proclaim His own commands. For the fact that He endured C cruel punishments here most generously and most meekly convicts the cruelty of those who unjustly crucified Him, but this endurance of punishments did not bring destruction to the commands of God; rather, it brought them, if I may so speak, to knowledge; as even He Himself taught— D
Jesus saying, "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the earth die, it remains alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit." The grain of wheat, A Jesus, having died, brought forth much fruit; and the Father always provides for the fruits that have been born, are still being born, and will be born from the death of the grain of wheat. The Father of Jesus is therefore a holy Father, who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for the sake of us all, being His own lamb, so that the Lamb of God, dying for the whole world, might take away the sin of the world. Therefore, not being forced, but willingly, He endured the things brought upon Him by the revilers.
After this, Celsus, returning to the argument against those who blaspheme the statues, says: "And those whom you blaspheme, one could say that they themselves also wish for this, and for this reason they endure being blasphemed; for it is best to compare equal things to equal B things. But these beings also defend themselves very strongly against the one who blasphemes, either by causing him to flee and hide because of this, or to be caught and destroyed." The demons, therefore, think they are taking vengeance on Christians, not because they are blasphemed, but because they are being driven out by them from the images and from human bodies and souls. For although Celsus did not understand the matter, he nevertheless spoke a truth in this place. For it is true that the souls of those who condemn Christians, and of those who betray them, and of those who are pleased to make war upon Christians, are filled with evil demons C.
But since the souls of those who die for the sake of Christianity, departing from the body with glory on account of piety, would break the power of the demons and make their designs against men weaker, for this reason, I think, the demons, having learned by experience that they are defeated and overcome by the martyrs of the truth, were afraid to set about taking vengeance again; and thus, until they forget the pains they have suffered, it is probable that there will be peace for Christians with this world. But when they have gathered their strength, and being blinded by wickedness wish to take vengeance again and persecute Christians, they will again be defeated, and then again the souls of the pious, and of those who for the sake of piety strip off their bodies D, will overthrow the army of the evil one.
I, however, think that since the demons perceive that those who are victorious and die for the sake of piety overthrow their dominion, while those who are defeated by the pains and deny the worship of God come under their power, they therefore sometimes strive against those who are handed over as Christians, suffering as they do on account of their confession, but finding rest in their denial. And it is possible to see traces of these things even in the judges, who, when Christians endure insults and tortures with a great spirit, suffer greatly; but they triumph when a Christian succumbs. Nor do they do this from a sense of what they call humanity. For they have perceived
A clearly that, although the tongue of those overcome by pain may have sworn, the mind remains unsworn. And these things refer to: “But they do indeed severely punish the defamer, who for this reason flees and hides, or is caught and destroyed.” And even if some Christian flees, he does not flee out of cowardice, but in observation of the commandment of the Master, and in keeping himself pure for the sake of others who will be benefited by his salvation.
45. Let us see also what follows; they are thus: “What need is there to recount what prophets and prophetesses, as well as other possessed men and women, have declared by a divine voice from oracles; how many wonders were heard from the very sanctuaries; what was revealed to those who made use of victims and sacrifices; how many things were made known by other prodigious signs? And to some, manifest visions of the gods appeared. The whole of life is full of such examples. How many cities have been founded by the warnings of oracles, and have been delivered from diseases and famines; and how many, by neglecting or forgetting these, have miserably perished? How many colonies have been sent out and, by carrying out their commands, have flourished? How many princes, how many private individuals, have experienced adverse or favorable fortune for this reason? How many who were childless have obtained what they sought? How many have escaped the wrath of demons? How many have had mutilated limbs restored? And how many, after showing irreverence toward the temples, have straightway met with disaster, some losing their minds and being seized by the god, others confessing C what they had done, others inflicting death upon themselves, or being seized by incurable diseases? And there were even those whom a terrifying voice issuing from the sanctuaries destroyed.” I do not know how Celsus brings these things forward as if their truth were established, yet considers the miracles that have been handed down to us in writing, whether those of the Jews or those concerning Jesus and his disciples, to be myths. Why, indeed, should ours not be true, and yet those which Celsus recounts not be fabulous figments? Certainly, the sects of Greek philosophers—such as those of Democritus, Epicurus, and Aristotle D—attached no faith to them; but perhaps they would have believed our accounts, because of their manifest reality, had they encountered Moses or any of the prophets who performed wonders, or Jesus himself.
The Pythian [prophetess] is reported to have given oracles at some time, even though she had been corrupted; but our prophets were admired not only by the men of their own time, because of the clarity of their utterances, but also in subsequent ages. A For it is from the things which the prophets oracularly declared that cities were built, and men were healed, and famines ceased. Furthermore, the entire Jewish nation clearly came from Egypt to Palestine in accordance with oracles; and this nation, having complied with the commands of God, flourished, but having erred, it repented. Why need I recount how many rulers and private individuals, according to the histories of Scripture, fared better or worse by heeding or neglecting the prophecies? If indeed one must speak of childlessness, over which some fathers or mothers have been distressed, after sending up prayers regarding this to the Creator of all B—let one read the account of Abraham and Sarah, from whom, even when they were already decrepit, Isaac was born, the father of the whole Jewish nation, and others besides these. Let one read also what is related concerning Hezekiah, who not only received release from his illness, according to the prophecies of Isaiah, but also spoke confidently: "For from now on I shall beget children who will declare your righteousness." And in the fourth book of Kings, the woman who had received Elisha—having become a mother by the grace of God, as the prophet had prophesied regarding the birth of a child, in accordance with the prayers of Elisha. But also, countless people with physical impairments were healed by Jesus; and others, who had dared to outrage the Jewish religion in the Temple at Jerusalem, suffered the penalties written in the Books of the Maccabees. C
47. But Greeks will call these myths, even though they are attested as true by two entire nations. But why, are not the myths of the Greeks rather these? But if someone, approaching the argument fairly, so as not to appear to accept his own matters by lot D while disbelieving those of others, should say that the things of the Greeks were the work of certain demons, and those of the Jews were either from God through the prophets, or from angels, or from God through angels, and that those of the Christians were done by Jesus and the power given by Him to His apostles; come, let us compare all things with one another, and let us see what the purpose was of those who were the authors of these prodigies, and whether the things for the sake of which these prodigies were performed brought them benefit, or harm, or neither. Certainly the ancient Jewish nation will appear to have been a nation of philosophers before they sinned against the Divinity, by whom, on account of their great wickedness, they were abandoned; and the Christians, who in an incredible manner...
have united themselves into a society, will appear to have been led to abandon their ancestral institutions, and to embrace others that were foreign to them, rather by prodigies than by exhortations. And indeed, if one must hold a reasonable discourse concerning the original constitution of the Christians, we shall say that it is improbable that the apostles of Jesus A, 73 men unlettered and private, would have relied on anything else to preach Christianity to men than the power bestowed upon them and the grace in their word regarding the things declared; nor could those who listened to them have been led to shift from their own ancestral customs of long standing, had not some noteworthy power and miraculous events moved them toward such strange and foreign dogmas, alien to those in which they had been nurtured.
48. Next, I do not know how Celsus, while setting forth the zeal of those who struggle even to the death so as not to abjure Christianity B, 74 adds as if comparing our side with those which the initiators and mystagogues say: "Indeed, my good man, just as you believe in eternal punishments, so too do the interpreters, initiators, and mystagogues of those sacred rites. The punishments which you threaten to others, they threaten to you. Now it is for you to consider whether those men speak more truly or more firmly. For while you both assert with equal assurance that your own doctrines are true, if there is need of proofs, they bring forward many and manifest ones, derived both from the works of certain demonic powers and from the responses of oracles, and by bringing forth prophecies of every kind." Celsus contends, therefore, that the leaders of sacred rites speak just as we do about eternal C punishments, and he wishes to weigh on which side the truth stands. For my part, I would affirm that the truth is with those who can so affect the hearers of their doctrine that they live as if they were certain that it is most true. But Jews and Christians are so affected regarding the age, as they call it, to come, and concerning the rewards that await the just in it, and the punishments that await sinners. Let Celsus, then, or anyone else who wishes, show who have been thus affected regarding eternal D punishments by the initiators and mystagogues. For it is probable that the intention of the father of the doctrines in question is not merely to inspire terror and to discourse about punishments, but also to affect the hearers so that they might, to the best of their ability, avoid committing those things which would bring such punishments upon themselves. But also the prophecies, provided that they are not read in a careless manner 80, seem to me sufficient to persuade the prudent and candid reader that those men were inspired by the Spirit of God, to whom nothing from the works of demons, nothing from the responses of oracles, and nothing from the prophecies can be shown to be even in the slightest degree comparable.
A 49. Let us see also the points that follow, spoken by Celsus against us: "Moreover, how are these things of yours not absurd, to yearn for the body and to hope that this very thing will rise again, as if there were nothing better or more precious to us than this; yet again, to throw it into torments as if it were worthless?" But it is not worth discussing this with those who are persuaded of such things and who are consumed by the body; for these are the people who are in other respects also boorish and impure, and who, without reason, engage in sedition. But to those who hope that the soul or the mind (whether they wish to call this a spiritual substance, or an intelligent, holy, and blessed spirit, or a living soul, or an offspring of a divine and incorporeal nature B that is supercelestial and incorruptible, or whatever else they delight in naming it), to those who hope to possess this for eternity with God, to these I shall speak. For they indeed rightly think that those who have lived good lives will be happy, and that the unjust will be altogether together with eternal evils; and from this doctrine, neither they nor any other person should ever depart. Regarding the resurrection, even if he himself reproaches us many times already, we, having set forth as well as possible the line of reasoning that appeared rational to us on this point, do not intend to rebut a single objection that is frequently repeated by replying to it frequently. Celsus slanders us by attributing to us the opinion that there is nothing better or more precious in our constitution than the body. For we say that the soul, and especially that which is C participant in reason, is a thing more precious than any body, since in the soul, and not in the body, is stamped the character of the image of the Creator. For God is not a body according to us, so that we might not fall into the same absurdities into which those who philosophize in the manner of Zeno and Chrysippus have fallen.
50. But since he also reproaches us for yearning for the body, let him know that if the yearning is evil, we yearn for nothing; but if it is indifferent, we yearn for everything that God promises to the righteous. Thus, therefore, we both yearn for and hope for the resurrection of the righteous. Furthermore, Celsus thinks that we are inconsistent with ourselves, where we hope for the resurrection of the body as being worthy of honor from God, D while elsewhere we consign it to torments as if it were worthless. But nothing is worthless which undergoes suffering for the sake of piety and, for the sake of virtue, takes on trials; rather, everything that is consumed in pleasures along with wickedness is worthless. The divine Scripture indeed says: "What is the precious seed? The seed of man. What is the worthless seed?"
The seed of man." A Afterward, Celsus supposes that one should not discourse with men who hope for the comforts of the body, since they are by no cause addicted to the thing upon which the comforts hoped for by them cannot fall. He even calls them rustic and impure, and devoted to sedition for no reason; whereas he ought, as a humane man, to have brought aid even to those who are more rustic. For our society is not restricted—as it is with brute animals—to those who are more rustic, but He who made us has made us such that we might have society with all men. It is fitting, therefore, to discourse also with the rustic, and with all one’s might to lead them to a more civilized life; and with the impure also, so that, as much as possible, they may be made pure; and finally with those who feel anything at all without reason and whose B soul is sick, so that they may no longer do anything without reason, nor suffer from the diseases of the soul.
51. Afterward, he accepts those who hope that the soul or the mind—or what they call the spiritual, or the rational spirit, intellectual, holy, and blessed, or the living soul—shall enjoy eternal life with God. He admits this dogma as rightly conceived: that those who have lived well shall be gifted with happiness, but that the wicked shall be affected with eternal punishments. But of all the things said by Celsus, I admire nothing more than what he adds to the aforementioned: "From this dogma, neither they C nor any other man should ever depart." Yet in writing against the Christians, whose faith has no other object than God, and the promises made to the righteous through Christ, and the teachings concerning punishment for the wicked, he ought to have observed that a Christian, if he were to fall away from his religion by the arguments of Celsus against the Christians, would without doubt also reject this dogma, from which he says neither Christians nor any other man ought to depart. Far more humanely, in my opinion, did Chrysippus deal with men in his book *On the Curing of Passions*. For when he wished to heal the passions that infest and disturb human nature, he used primarily those arguments which seemed sound to him; but he applied second and third D arguments, even those drawn from dogmas which were not approved by him. Although there were, he says, three kinds of goods, even with this posited, the passions must be healed; and one who is most ardently affected must not be treated in such a way that one examines what kind of dogma he who is disturbed by passion holds, lest, if we delay untimely in overthrowing the dogmas that have preoccupied the mind, the opportunity for healing slip away. He adds: "Even if pleasure were the highest good, and he whom the passion possesses felt this way, none-
- A the less must he be helped, and it must be shown to him that even for those who posit pleasure as the good and the end, all passion is admittedly something to be avoided." Celsus, therefore, having once accepted the doctrines concerning those who have lived well as being about to be happy, and concerning the unjust as being about to be utterly held fast in eternal evils, ought to have acted consistently with himself, and, if it were possible, following the discourse that appeared primary to him, he ought to have built upon it and demonstrated by more arguments that the unjust will truly be held fast in eternal evils, and those who have lived well will be happy.
For we ourselves, primarily, because of the things that have persuaded us to live a life according to Christianity in many and countless ways, desire to bring all men, as far as possible, to the whole of the Christian doctrines; B but where we find men preoccupied by slander against Christians, so that they do not even lend their ears—a fantasy that those who promise to teach the things of the divine Word are not even pious Christians—there, according to our love for humanity, we stand our ground, as far as possible, in order that, even if we establish the doctrines concerning eternal punishment upon the ungodly, we may cause even those who do not wish to become Christians to admit the discourse. And in this way we also wish to produce a conviction concerning those who have lived well, seeing that even those who are strangers to the faith speak things similar to us regarding a healthy life. For one would not find that human beings have completely lost the common notions concerning the noble and the just, and the base and the unjust. C All men, therefore, seeing the world and the ordered motion of the heaven 98 and of those in the fixed sphere within it, and the order of the stars called planets which move in directions contrary to the motion of the world; and seeing also the temperament of the air 99 and its harmony toward the needs of living creatures, and especially of human beings, and the abundance of things created for the sake of man, should be cautious not to do anything that might displease the Creator of the universe and of their souls, and of the mind that is in them; and they should be persuaded that they will be punished for the things in which they have sinned, and that they will be lead D accordingly, by Him who manages each according to his worth, to the accounts of the things rightly done or those rendered as is fitting 1; and let all men be persuaded that the good will depart toward better things, while the bad will be handed over, wretchedly, to labors and torments for their injustices and acts of licentiousness and intemperance, and furthermore for their cowardice 2 and for all folly.
A 53. And so much for this point. Let us now see other words of Celsus, which are as follows: "Since men have been born bound to a body, whether for the sake of the ordering of the whole, or to pay penalties for sin, or because the soul has been weighed down by certain passions, until it is purified in the appointed periods—for it is necessary, as Empedocles says, that the whole mortal race wander for thrice ten thousand seasons from the blessed realms, assuming all sorts of forms of mortal beings over time—one must therefore believe that they are entrusted to certain overseers of this prison-house." See how, even in these matters, speaking doubtfully and from human conjectures, and citing the opinions of many concerning our origin, he shows a certain modesty, not daring to declare any of them false. B If then it did not seem right to such a man to assent rashly or to reject boldly what had been decided by the ancients, was it not suitable for him, if he was unwilling to believe the doctrine of the Jews declared by their prophets, and concerning Jesus, at least to doubt and consider that it was probable that those who worshipped the God of all, and who, because of the reverence due to Him and to the laws they believed to have been ordained by Him, feared not to undergo countless dangers and death, were not neglected by God; and that, conversely, to those who had despised the idols fashioned by human art, and who had attempted to raise themselves by reasoning to the God over all, some signs of divine presence might have been granted? C Furthermore, he ought to have considered that the common Father and Creator of all, who sees all things and hears all things, and judges the will of each one seeking Him and striving for piety, imparts to them certain fruits of His governance, so that the knowledge they have once received concerning Him might be increased. If Celsus, and those who out of hatred for His teaching hate Moses, the Jewish prophets, Jesus, and His genuine disciples, had reflected on these things, they would not have so reviled Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and His apostles. Nor would they deem the Jews to be below the other nations of the earth, nor say they are worse than the Egyptians, who, as far as lies in them, lower the honor due to the Divinity—whether by superstition or by whatever cause or error—to brute animals. And D we have said these things, not to induce anyone to doubt the Christian doctrine, but to teach those who so confidently tear it apart with revilings that it would be far better if they doubted, rather than so audaciously speaking things they do not know about Jesus and His disciples, which neither by sight comprehended, to speak with the Stoics, nor by other...
criterion of truth, regarding which each school of philosophers has constructed its own appearance as it saw fit.
Further, since Celsus says, "It must be believed, then, that they are turned over to certain overseers of this prison," one must reply to him that a soul earnest for virtue is released from the bonds of wickedness and in this life—where, as Jeremiah named them, are the "prisoners of the earth" (Lam. 3:34)—by Him who said, "Jesus" (Isa. 49:9), just as the prophet Isaiah foretold long before His advent. And what did he foretell, if not that those in bonds should go forth, and those in darkness should be revealed? And this same Jesus, as the same Isaiah foretold of Him, "a light has sprung up for those sitting in the region and shadow of death" (Isa. 9:2); insomuch that we now say: "Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us" (Ps. 2:3). But if Celsus and those who are B disposed against us similarly to him were able to hear the depth of the Gospels, he would not have counseled us to obey those whom he calls the overseers of the prison.
It is written in the Gospel that there was a certain woman who was bent over and could not look upward at all; whom Jesus, seeing, and seeing for what cause she was bent over, being unable to look up at all, said: "And this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound, lo, these eighteen years, ought she not to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 13:11, 16). How many others are there even now who, bound by Satan, are bent over and are unable, on account of him, to look up at all, for he wishes to cast our eyes down to the earth? And no one C makes them straight except the Word that dwelt in Jesus, and which had also previously moved the prophets. For Jesus came to liberate all those oppressed by the devil, and concerning him He said with a certain depth befitting Him: "Now is the ruler of this world judged" (John 16:11). We do not therefore revile the demons who frequent this place, but we condemn their operations which tend toward the ruin of the human race, which, under the pretext of oracles and the healing of bodies and other things, seek to separate the soul, which has fallen into this body of humiliation, from God; which humiliation of the body those who understand it cry out, saying: "Miserable man that I am, who will set me free D from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:24). Nor indeed is the body...
A offered to be tortured and destroyed in vain; for it is not in vain 19 that one offers up the body to these, but to prevent the earthly demons and those who worship them from being called gods, being besieged 20 by them. And that it is dear to God to be destroyed for the sake of virtue, and to be tortured for the sake of piety, and to die for the sake of holiness, we have deemed reasonable 21: "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his holy ones" (Ps. 115:15); and we say it is a good thing not to love life. But Celsus, when he compares us to those lost brigands who pay the just penalties for their crimes, and is not ashamed to compare the praiseworthy purpose of the martyrs to the stubbornness of brigands 783, makes himself in this matter a brother of those who numbered Jesus with the iniquities, in whom the Scripture is fulfilled which says: "He was numbered with the transgressors" 12 (Isa. 53:12; Mark 15:28), and he acts like a brigand himself in these matters 22.
55. Following these things, Celsus says: B "Reason chooses one of two things. If they refuse to perform sacred rites and to worship those who preside over them, let them not go into manhood, nor take a wife, nor beget children, nor do anything else in life, but let them all depart/depart together, leaving no seed of themselves behind, so that no such race of men may be left on earth. But if they desire to take wives, and beget children, and taste of fruits, and be participants in the things that are in this life, and be possessors of the evils that are annexed to this life (for nature itself compels all men to endure evils; these things must necessarily be, and they have no other place), they are bound to render the honor due to those who are the curators of these things and to fulfill the duties of this life, until they are freed from these bonds, lest they appear thankless toward them. For it would be unjust for those who enjoy the things over which they preside to pay them no tribute at all." To these things we say C that one manner of departure from this life seems to us consistent with reason, namely when we die for the sake of piety and virtue. This happens when those who are considered judges, or who seem to have power over our lives, give us an option of one of two things: either to live by violating the commandments of Jesus, or to die if we persist in obeying his commands. But since not all 13 can grasp that which is more excellent, that is to say, that which is in all respects pure, God has permitted us to take a wife, and to rear the children born from her, but not to take away from life D children given by Providence. Nor do these things conflict with the purpose of not obeying earthly demons.
for being armed with the armor of God, we stand like athletes of piety against the race of demons that plot against us.
Although Celsus may in his own discourse send us away from life, so that, as he thinks, our kind may disappear entirely from the earth, we shall nevertheless live according to the laws of God among those who worship our Creator, in no way wishing to serve the laws of sin. We shall take wives if we wish, and we shall rear the children given to us in our marriages; and if need be, we shall share in the things of this life, enduring the assigned evils as temptations of the soul. For thus it is the custom of the divine Scriptures to name the things that befall men, in which, as gold in the fire, B the human soul is tested and is shown to be either worthy of reproach or worthy of admiration. And so, regarding the things that Celsus calls evils, our mind is prepared, so that we are ready to say: "Prove me, O Lord, and try me; test my reins and my heart" (Ps. xxv, 2). For no one is crowned unless he has contended lawfully here on earth in this body of humiliation (II Tim. ii, 5; Phil. iii, 21).
Furthermore, we do not pay the honors that Celsus thinks are due to those whom he says are entrusted with the things of this world. For we worship our Lord God, and Him only do we serve, praying to become imitators of Christ, who, to the devil who said to Him, "All these things I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me," replied, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve" (Matth. iv, 9, 10). And for this reason C we do not pay the honors that Celsus says are due to those whom he claims are entrusted with the things of this world; since no one can serve two masters, and we cannot serve God and Mammon (Matth. vi, 24), whatever one or more things that name may signify. Moreover, if a lawgiver is dishonored by the transgression of his law (Rom. ii, 25), it seems clear to us that, when two laws are in conflict—the law of God and the law of Mammon—it is better for us to dishonor Mammon by transgressing the law of Mammon, so that by keeping the law of God we may honor God, rather than dishonor God by transgressing the law of God, so that by keeping the law of Mammon we may honor Mammon.
D 57. Celsus thinks that men perform the duties of life until they are released from these bonds, when they render the sacrifices according to the customs held by the many to each of the gods believed in by the people of each city, not understanding what is truly the duty accepted by accurate piety. We, however, say that he performs his duties in life who, together with what is proper, keeps in mind who it is that created him, what things are pleasing to Him, and does everything to be pleasing to God. And again, Celsus wants us to be grateful toward the demons here, thinking that we owe them an expression of gratitude. But we, to whom it is clear what the virtue of gratitude is,
we say that we do nothing ungrateful to those who bestow no benefits upon us, but rather stand in opposition to us, when we do not sacrifice to them nor even court them; but we take care not to be ungrateful toward God, of whose benefits we are full, being his creatures, and judged worthy by him to have existence in whatever manner we do, and expecting after this life the hopes that come from him. And there is also a symbol for us of the gratitude toward God, the bread which is called the Eucharist. A Moreover, as we said above, the administration of the things created for our use does not rest with demons. Therefore, we do nothing unjust when, as we use the created things, we do not offer sacrifices to those to whom these things do not pertain. And even if we acknowledge that not certain demons, but angels, have been appointed over the fruits of the earth and the generation of animals, we praise them indeed and call them blessed, to whom the things useful to our race have been entrusted by God; yet we do not render to them the honor due to God. For B neither does God will this, nor do they themselves, who have been entrusted with such things. And they actually approve of us for being careful not to sacrifice to them, or [if we were] sacrificing; for they themselves do not have need of the fumes arising from the earth. 58. After these things, Celsus says the following: "That the power given to certain beings extends even to the smallest matters, one might learn from what the Egyptians C say, that the body of man is divided into thirty-six parts by certain demons or ethereal gods (some count even more), and each one is assigned to rule over one of these parts. And they know the names of those demons in their native tongue, such as Chnoumen, and Chnachoumen, and Cnat, and Sicut, and Biou, and Erou, and Erebiou, and Ramanor, and Reianour, and whatever others they call them in their own language."
And by invoking them, they seek to be delivered from the ailments of their parts. What, then, forbids one from paying homage to these as well as to others, if one wishes to be healthy rather than sick, and lucky rather than unlucky, and, as they think, to be delivered from tortures and punishments? And by these means, Celsus tries to drag our soul down to the demons, as if they had been allotted our bodies, and asserting that each one presides over a part of our body A, he wants us to believe in the demons he describes, and to serve them, so that we may be healthy rather than sick, and lucky rather than unlucky, and, as far as possible, be delivered from tortures. So much, then, has he condemned the undivided and inseparable honor of the God of all, that he does not believe that God, when worshipped alone and honored with a great soul, is sufficient to provide to the one who honors Him, from the very act of worshipping Him, a power that can ward off the demons' plots against the holy one. For he has not seen in what way the name of Jesus, when invoked by those who truly believe, has healed not a few from diseases, demonic possessions, and other troubles. B
It is likely that he who embraces the views of Celsus will laugh when we say that, "at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." But having laughed, he will receive clearer proofs that these things are so, than those he offers regarding the names he recounts—of Chnoumen, and Chnachoumen, and Cnat, and Sicut, and the rest of the Egyptian catalog—as being invoked and healing the ailments of the parts. And see, in what way, by diverting us from believing in the God of all through Jesus Christ, he urges us, for the sake of the healing of our body, to have faith in thirty-six barbarian demons; whom only the Egyptian magicians, I know not how, invoke and promise us better things. It would be high time for us, according to Celsus, to practice sorcery and witchcraft rather than to be Christians; and to believe in an infinite number of demons rather than in the God who is immediately manifest, living, and evident, to whom all are subject, through Him who, with great power, has sown the pure word of piety throughout the whole inhabited world of men; and I shall not be lying if I add that He has sown it also among the other rational creatures who stand in need of correction, healing, and change from wickedness.
Suspecting, then, that those who have learned such things might slip into magic, and feeling somehow the harm that would come to those who listen, Celsus says: "One must, however, be on guard, lest anyone who is with them, in the healing practice associated with them, becomes too concerned with the body and, turned away from the better things, be seized by forgetfulness." For perhaps D we should not disbelieve each one.
A even those who are wise, who say that the greatest part of those earthly demons, burning with desire for generation, and greedy for blood and vapors and melodies and other such things, can do nothing better than to heal the body and to foretell the future to men and cities, and to know and perform whatever relates to mortal affairs. Since such a great slippery path exists around these matters, as even the enemy of God's truth confesses, how much better is it—without any fear concerning taking up with such demons, or becoming too concerned with the body, or being turned away from the better things, or being seized by forgetfulness of the superior ones—to entrust oneself to the God who is over all, through Jesus Christ, who has given us such a teaching, and to ask from Him all assistance, as well as the protection of holy angels and righteous men, so that they may deliver us from those earthly demons who burn with desire for carnal pleasures, who delight in blood and vapors, who are seized by shameless melodies, and who are bound to other things of this sort; and who, it is established even by Celsus' own confession, can do nothing better than to heal the body. I, however, would not even affirm it to be evident that such demons, whatever cult is attributed to them, can heal bodies; rather, health should be sought by the aid of medicine if one wishes to lead a simple and common life; but if one wishes for a life more excellent than the common, by piety toward the God who is over all, and by prayers poured out to Him. B
61. For you yourself consider: toward which character will the God who is over all, who is able like no one else to act for the benefit of men in all things—whether concerning the soul, the body, or external things—show his favor more? Will it be toward the one who commits himself in all things to Him, or toward the one who solicitously inquires into the names of demons, and what their power is, and what they do, and by what incantations they are evoked, and in what herbs they delight, and which stones are consecrated to them, and what characters are inscribed upon them, which correspond to the symbolic or any other forms of demons? It is clear, even to one who only slightly understands, that the disposition of a man who is upright and not at all curious, who by this very fact commits himself entirely to the C supreme God, will be acceptable to God and to all those who are familiar with Him; but that disposition which, for the sake of bodily health, and love of bodily things, and the successful outcome of indifferent matters, curiously investigates the names of demons and searches for how one might charm the demons with certain incantations—as being evil and impious, and more demonic than human—God will abandon, *Jesus* D chose *the one who says such things* to be torn apart by demons; which, since they are clearly corrupt, Boherellus thinks should be read as "Jesus chose the one who says such things" [instead of] those whom he [Celsus] prefers to Jesus, [namely] the demons. I, however, have considered these words to be spurious and foreign, and have neglected them. Perhaps this was at one time noted in the margin, and later crept into the text. Certainly, it is not recognized by Gelenius. A little later, Hoeschelius has in the text...
A of thoughts, or of other evils. It is likely that they, being base and, as Celsus confessed, attached to blood, and savor of offerings, and melodies, and other such things, would not even keep faith or, as it were, give their right hand to those who grant them these things. For if others were to call upon them against those who have served them, and by buying their servitude—with a greater amount of blood, and savor of offerings, and whatever service they require—they would plot against him who served them yesterday and shared with them the feast they love.
62. After Celsus has said much in the preceding parts, even up to the oracles, and has sent us to B their prophecies as if they were uttered by gods, he has now done better by confessing that "those who predict the future fate for a person and a city, and all who occupy themselves with mortal affairs, are earthly demons, worn down by generation, and attached to blood, and bound to the savor of offerings, and melodies, and other such things, being unable to do anything better than these." And it is likely that, when we stood against Celsus as he theologized about the oracles and the healings C among those deemed to be gods, some considered us impious for saying that these were the works of demons, dragging human souls down into the things of generation. But now, let him who once held that opinion about us be persuaded by what is well said by the Christians, seeing that he who writes against the Christians has now at the end written these things, as if overcome by the Spirit of truth. And even if Celsus says that "one must perform sacred rites to them, as far as it is profitable"—for to do this everywhere, reason does not choose—one must not perform sacred rites D to demons worn down by savors of offerings and blood; nor should the Divine, as far as it is in our power, be defiled by bringing it down to wicked demons. But if Celsus had accurately understood the notion of what is profitable, and had seen that what is truly profitable is virtue and the action in accordance with virtue, he would not have assigned the phrase "as far as it is profitable" to such matters, and, as he himself confessed, to demons. We, therefore, choose—if health and success in life were to be obtained through the service of such demons—rather to be sick and unfortunate in life, with a conscience purely pious toward the God of all, than, while being separated and fallen from God and our soul being in the final state of sickness and wretchedness, to have a healthy body and to abound in the comforts of life. For one should rather cleave to Him who is in need of nothing, except for the salvation of men and every rational being, than to those who have need of the savor of offerings and blood.
Celsus, then, after so many arguments which he stated concerning demons needing the savor of offerings and blood, as if [he were speaking of] their impropriety...
goes on to say, “It is better to think that demons have no need of anything, nor do they require anything, but that they rejoice in those who look towards them with piety.” If he had believed this to be true, he ought to have held this view and not set down those earlier things—those things which he has now taken back. A But in truth, human nature is never utterly abandoned by God and the truth of His Only-Begotten. Wherefore Celsus, while he spoke the truth in the passage concerning the savor and blood which demons require, again fell back through his own wickedness into falsehoods, and he likens demons to men who act in perfect justice, even if no one acknowledges their favor, yet who do good deeds for those who return the gratitude. He seems to me, however, to be in a state of confusion regarding this point, for at one moment his governing faculty B is troubled by the demons, and at another, recovering from the irrationality cast upon it by them, he perceives a little of the truth. For again he adds, "God ought in no way, and in no manner, to be abandoned, neither by day, nor by night, neither in public, nor in private, in no discourse, and in no act; but whatever is done or not done, let the soul always be intent upon God." And I interpret "whatever is done" to mean what is done in public, in every act and in every word. And then again, as if his reason were wrestling with the infatuation cast upon it by the demons, and were for the most part being overcome, he proceeds and says: "If things are so, what harm is there in conciliating for oneself the rulers of this world, and others, even the dynasts and kings among men? Since even these have not attained this dignity without the power of demons." C Before, as much as in him lay, he degraded our soul to the worship of demons; now he wishes us to conciliate even the dynasts and kings among men. It would be entirely unnecessary to dwell upon examples worthy of mention; our life and our histories are full of them.
64. Therefore, we must pray to the one God over all that He may be propitious, for He is certainly reconciled by piety and every other virtue. But if he thinks that, after the highest God, certain others should also be reconciled to us, let him understand that just as the movement of a shadow follows a moving body, in the same way, when the God over all is reconciled, it follows that one has all His friends—angels, souls, and spirits—as propitious. D For they perceive who are worthy of favor from God; and not only are they themselves kindly disposed toward those who are worthy, but they also assist those who wish to worship the God over all, they reconcile Him to them, and they join their own prayers to the prayers of those who wish to worship the God over all.
A Thus we dare to say that for men who, with firm purpose, set their hearts upon better things and pray to God, there are countless holy powers who pray with them, even when unbidden. They embrace our mortal race with favor, and, if I may so speak, they take up arms with it; they do so because they see the demons warring against and struggling with the salvation of those who, above all others, dedicate themselves to God and who do not care for the malice of the demons. If those demons grow savage against a man—a man who flees from the worship of them through the savor of sacrifices and blood, and who in every word and deed hastens to be united and joined to the God over all—these holy powers hasten to help him through Jesus, who destroyed countless demons when He went about healing and turning back those who were oppressed by the devil. B
We, however, must despise the propitiation of men and kings, not solely if we are asked to propitiate them through murders, debaucheries, and most cruel deeds, but even if we are asked to do so through impiety toward the God of the universe, or through any sort of servile compliance and base flattery, which is alien to generous and magnanimous men who desire to possess fortitude as the greatest virtue along with their other virtues. Yet where nothing is required of us that is contrary to the law and word of God, we are not so insane as to stir up against ourselves the anger of a king or potentate, which would bring us insults, torments, or even death. For we have read: "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God; so that he who resists the power resists the ordinance of God" (Rom. xiii, 1, 2). C Now, in our commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, we have examined these words in various ways, as far as we were able, and at greater length; but for the present, we have chosen a simpler and more common understanding, for the reason that Celsus said that kings were not raised to this dignity without the power of demons. Much could be said here regarding the appointment of kings and potentates; for it is a great question, inasmuch as there are those who exercise cruel and tyrannical rule, or for whom rule is an opportunity to gorge themselves on pleasures and luxuries. Therefore, for the present, we refrain from considering this question. However, we do not swear by the fortune of the king, nor by any other of those who are considered gods. D For whether, as it has pleased some, fortune is a mere...
A utterance—a name with no substance, just as it appears to reflection and disagreement—we do not swear by it, because it is by no means God, nor does it possess any subsistence or power to do anything, lest we take the power of adjuration in vain for things for which we ought not; or whether, as it seemed to some who argued that when they swear by the fortune of the Roman Emperor, they are swearing by his demon, the thing called the "fortune of the emperor" is a B demon. And in this case, it is better for us to die than to swear by a wicked and faithless demon, who often sins along with the man he has been allotted to, or even sins more than he does.
66. Then again Celsus, similar to those who are possessed by a demon, who at one moment return to their right mind, and at the next relapse into insanity, speaks as if he were recovering his senses: "If it should happen that a worshipper of God were commanded to do something impious or to utter something shameful, he should never obey in any way; but rather endure all punishments and suffer every kind of death, than to say or even think anything unworthy of God." Then, through ignorance of our doctrine, he acts rashly and confuses everything: "But if anyone," he says, "should command you to praise the sun, or to sing a joyful paean to Minerva, you would appear to worship the great God more by praising them. For piety, which extends to all things, is more perfect." To these things we say that we do not wait to be commanded C to praise the sun, for we have been taught not only to praise those who are subject to an order, but also our enemies. We praise the sun, therefore, as a fine creation of God, which, observing the laws of God, obeys this command: "Bless the Lord, sun and moon," (Ps. CXLVIII, 3) and praises the Father and Creator of this universe to the best of its ability. But as for Minerva, whom he joins with the sun, the Greeks invent myths about her, or whatever [they might say].
Concerning the interrogation of Polycarp
The proconsul asked Epimenides' [Polycarp's] own self whether he was indeed Polycarp. When he confessed it, the proconsul began to urge him to deny Christ: "Respect," said he, "your age," and other like things which they were accustomed to suggest to him: "Swear by the fortune of Caesar; repent; say, 'Do away with the impious'." Then Polycarp, with a grave and stern countenance, looking at the whole crowd that was in the stadium, and stretching his hand out towards them, not without a groan, lifted his eyes to heaven and said: "Do away with the impious." When the proconsul insisted and said: "Swear, and I will release you; speak reproaches against Christ," Polycarp replied: "Six and eighty years have I served Him, and no injury has He ever done me; and how can I speak impiously against my King and the author of my salvation?" When the proconsul pressed him again, and said: "Swear by the fortune of Caesar," Polycarp said: "If you vainly contend that I should swear by the fortune, as you call it, of Caesar, feigning that you do not know who I am, hear me freely confess: I am a Christian." [Note: swearing by the fortune of the Caesars has the same effect. Tertull., *Apolog.* ch. 32: "But we do swear, not by the fortunes of the Caesars, but by their salvation, which is more august than all fortunes." And ch. 35: "And thus, all of them, even to the very eruption of impiety, were sacrificing for the safety of the emperor, and yet were perjuring themselves by his fortune."]
D [Regarding the phrase "though as it were," and "disagreements." The "fortune" is an utterance, a mere appearance; the "disagreement" is simply doubt. Indeed, what is only a name, we cannot say is anything else but a mere word, entirely signifying nothing.] [index: entries preserved]
power, praise the Father and Creator of all. A Yet the Greek accounts have mythologized Athena as being ranked with the sun, whether through hidden meanings or without them, claiming she was born from the head of Zeus, armed; and that when pursued then B by Hephaestus, who desired to ravish her virginity, she escaped him, but that the seed which had fallen upon the earth from the impulse of his desire, she, having loved, reared, and called Erichthonius. .....Whom once, they say, B Athena Nurtured, daughter of Zeus, but fruitful earth brought forth. And we see indeed that for one who accepts Athena as the daughter of Zeus, many myths and fictions must be accepted,
792
which he who flees from myths and seeks the truth would never approve.67. But if this is to be allegorized, and Athena is said to be prudence, let one demonstrate her subsistence and essence, as though she subsisted according to this allegory. But if Athena was also a woman of old who was honored, as those who prescribed mysteries and ceremonies to their subjects have handed down, wishing the name of Athena to be celebrated among men as a goddess, much less is it permitted to us to praise Athena and venerate her as a goddess, to whom it is not even lawful to worship such a great sun, even if we do praise him. Celsus, indeed, says that it seems we worship the great God better if we also praise the sun and Athena. But we know the contrary. For we offer hymns only to the God who is over all, and to his Only-begotten Word and God; and we praise God and his Only-begotten in the same way as the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the whole heavenly host. C For all these, being a divine chorus, together with the righteous among men, praise the God who is over all and his Only-begotten. We have already said that one ought not to swear by the king among men, or by his so-called fortune. Wherefore it is not necessary for us again to refute the statement: "Even if one orders you to swear by the king among men, this is not evil. For to him has been entrusted everything that is on earth; and whatever you receive in life, you receive from him." We, however, say that not everything on earth has been entirely entrusted to him, nor do we receive from him whatever we receive in life. For when we receive justly and well, we receive from God and his providence; for example, mild fruits, and bread that strengthens the heart of man, and the pleasant vine, and wine D that gladdens the heart of man. But even the fruits of the olive, to gladden the face with oil, we have from the providence of God.
68. Then next Celsus says that one should not disbelieve the ancient man who long ago stated:
A *“One king, to whom the son of crooked-counseling Saturn has given it.”* And he adds that if you overthrow this dogma, you will justly pay the penalty to the king. For if all were to do the same as you, there would be no delay before the king was left alone and deserted, and all things on earth fell into the power of the most lawless and brutal barbarians, and neither the glory of your religion nor that of true wisdom would any longer remain among men. If, therefore, [we should say] *“One king...”* and *“Let there be one ruler,”* it is not to him to whom the son of crooked-counseling Saturn gave it, but to him to whom He who appoints and removes kings has given it, and who raises up a useful ruler on earth at the proper time. For He who is the son of that Saturn who was cast into Tartarus, according to the myths of the Greeks—the one who drove his father from the throne—is not the one who appoints kings; however much men may concoct allegories about the places [where these myths occur]. But God, the moderator of all things, knows how He disposes of those things which pertain to the appointment of kings. B We therefore overthrow the dogma, *“To whom the son of crooked-counseling Saturn gave it,”* being persuaded that neither God nor the Father of God wishes for anything crooked or tortuous. But we do not overthrow the dogma concerning Providence, and those things which are brought about by Him either primarily or via some consequence. Nor does the king justly exact penalties from us if we deny that the kingdom was given to him by the son of crooked-counseling Saturn, but affirm that it was given by Him who appoints kings and deprives them of the kingdom. And would that all would imitate me, and, spurning the Homeric dogma, accept the divine [teaching] regarding the appointment of kings, and obey the precept to honor kings. Given this, the king will not be left alone and deserted, nor will the things on earth fall into the power of the most lawless and brutal barbarians. For if, as Celsus says, all were to do the same as I—that is, if even the barbarians, by approaching the Word of God, were to become most law-abiding and gentle—then every [other] type of worship would be destroyed, and the C religion of the Christians alone would prevail; which indeed will sometime be the case, as that religion continues to win over more souls day by day. D 69. Then Celsus, not attending to his own inconsistent statements, says to the effect: “For if all were to do the same as you,” he says, “you would surely not maintain that, if the Romans were persuaded by you and, neglecting all the duties prescribed to them toward gods and men, were to worship your ‘Most High’—or by whatever name you please to call Him—He would descend and fight on their behalf, lacking any other help.” For has not the same God who promised these things and much greater than these to those who were once devoted to Him, as you yourselves say, show how much it profited them. With these, let alone being lords of the whole earth, there is not even a clod...
or a hearth left behind for them; but if any of you still secretly wanders, he is sought out for the punishment of death. A Since, however, he asks on a hypothesis, if the Romans, having been persuaded by the Christian word and having neglected the things concerning the supposed gods and the former human laws, were to worship the Most High, what would be the result? Hear what it pleases us to say concerning these things. We say that if two of us should agree upon earth about any matter whatsoever, whatever they ask will be done for them by the Father of just men who is in heaven; for God delights in the agreement of rational beings and averts disagreement. What must we think if not only a few, as now, but the entire Roman dominion were to agree? For they would pray to Him who previously said to the Hebrews being pursued by the Egyptians: "The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall keep silence" (Exod. XIV, 14); and having prayed with full agreement, they would be able to defeat far more enemies than the prayer of Moses, crying to God and those praying with him, routed. B Now, that God promised to those who keep the law—if it has not come to pass, it is not because God lied, nor has it not come to pass, but the promises were on condition of keeping the law and the life according to the law. And if not even a clod or a hearth is left for the Jews who received the promises on condition, one must blame all their lawlessness, and especially that which they perpetrated against Jesus.
But if, according to Celsus's hypothesis, all the Romans were persuaded, they would prevail over their enemies by praying; or rather, they would not even be fought against in the beginning, being protected by that divine power which promised to preserve five whole cities for the sake of fifty just men (Gen. XVIII, 26). C For the men of God are the salt that preserves the constitution of the world on earth, and the things on earth persist as long as the salt is not corrupted: "For if the salt have lost its savour, it is good for nothing in the earth or in the dunghill, but being cast out it shall be trodden under foot by men" (Luc. XIV, 34-35; Matth. V, 13). He that hath ears, let him hear how these things are said. And we, indeed, whenever God permits the tempter, having given him the power to pursue us, are persecuted; but whenever God wills that we should not suffer this, we enjoy even in the midst of a world that hates us an incredible peace, D trusting in Him who said: "Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (Joan. XVI, 33). And in truth He has overcome the world; hence the world has power only as long as its victor wills, who received from the Father the power to overcome it. We trust in this victory of His. But if He wills us again to struggle and contend for piety, let it come.
they shall hear from us: "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" A (Phil. iv, 13). For even of the two sparrows which are sold for an as, as the Scripture has named it, not one falls into the snare without the Father who is in heaven B (Matt. x, 29, 30); and to such an extent has divine Providence encompassed all things, that even the hairs of our head have been numbered by Him.
71. Then again, as is Celsus’ wont, he confuses everything, reporting what none of us wrote. His words are: "It is still intolerable of you, if those who now reign, having been persuaded by you, should be captured by enemies, to say that you will persuade others, their successors, and then others after they themselves have been captured, and others again and others still, until, all who had believed you having been captured, some prudent prince, foreseeing what would happen, destroys you all utterly before he himself perishes." It is not necessary to answer this, since none of us says that if those who now reign are persuaded by us and are captured by enemies, we will then persuade others, and if they are captured, others again and others still. But from where does he even cast out this idea, that if princes, always in a certain succession one after another, should obey us and be captured because they did not repel the enemies, at length some one prudent person will arise, foreseeing the future, who will destroy us utterly? But he seems to me to be stitching together nonsense here and belching it all out from himself.
72. After this he utters C a prayer of sorts: "If it were possible for all those who inhabit Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks and barbarians alike, even to the ends of the earth, to agree on one law," but judging this impossible, he adds: "He who thinks this knows nothing." Here there would be need of much meditation and many words, in order to prove that it is not only possible, but actually destined to happen, that whatever partakes of reason will come together into one law. Yet, if it be meet, I shall discourse briefly upon this matter, which requires much examination and construction, in order to show that what is said concerning the agreeing of all the rational creation into one law is not only possible, but true. The Stoics, indeed, say that when the most powerful of the elements prevails, there will be a conflagration, with all things being turned into fire; but we assert that the Word D will subdue all natures endowed with reason to Himself, and will change them into His own perfection, when each one, using his own power, shall choose what he wills, and shall obtain what he has chosen. For among the diseases and wounds of bodies, there are some indeed which the art of medicine cannot heal; but in the vices of souls
we deny that there is any which cannot be cured by the supreme Word and God. For the Word and His remedies are more powerful than all the diseases of the soul, and He applies them to each one as it pleases God. The end of all things will be the abolition of vices; but whether they are to be abolished in such a way that they can never in any part be reborn, or not, it is not the business of the present discourse to teach. Regarding, however, the complete abolition of vices and the emendation of every soul, many prophecies express this in B obscure words: but for the present, these words of Zephaniah will suffice: *Prepare thyself, wake in the morning; all their clusters have perished. Therefore wait for me, saith the Lord, in the day of my resurrection, in testimony; for my judgment is to the gathering of the nations, that I may receive the kings, to pour out upon them all the wrath of my fury. For in the fire of my jealousy shall all the earth be devoured. Because then I will turn unto the peoples a language in its generation, that all may call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him under one yoke. From the ends of the rivers of Ethiopia they shall bring me sacrifices. In that day thou shalt not be confounded for all thy works, which thou hast transgressed against me; for then I will take away from thee the mockery of thy reproach, and thou shalt no longer add to boast upon my holy mountain. And I will leave in thee a people meek and humble; and the remnant of Israel shall fear C the name of the Lord, and they shall not do iniquity, and they shall not speak vain things, and there shall not be found in their mouth a deceitful tongue; because they shall feed and lie down, and there shall be none to terrify them.* Whoever shall be able to understand all these things, let him explain that prophecy. Let him inquire especially what is meant by* all the earth being consumed*, and *a language being turned back upon the peoples in its generation*, of such a kind as it was before the confusion. Let him consider also the statement that the name of the Lord shall be invoked by all, so that they may serve Him under one yoke, and the mockery of reproach shall be taken away, and there shall no longer be iniquity, nor vain words, nor a deceitful tongue. And I have thought it well to set these forth briefly, and not in the way of a careful exposition, in order that the opinion of Celsus might be refuted, who thinks it impossible that those who inhabit Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks and barbarians alike, should agree in one D law. And perhaps it is indeed impossible for those who are still in the body, but it is not impossible for those who have been liberated from it.
75. Next, Celsus exhorts us to support the king with all our strength, and to labor with him in his just works.
A To this we must also answer that we do indeed, at the proper time, bring help to kings—a divine help, so to speak, taking up the whole armor of God. And we do this by obeying the apostolic voice, which says: "I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings, and for all who are in high positions." And the more pious a man is, the more effectively he helps kings, even more so than those who go forth to battle as soldiers and slaughter as many of the enemy as they can.
Furthermore, to those who are strangers to our faith and who demand that we take up arms for the common good and slay men, we may reply thus: that even those among you who are priests of certain images and keepers of the temples of the gods you worship, keep their own right hand unstained for the sake of their sacrifices, so that they may offer the customary sacrifices to the gods you say exist with hands bloodless and pure from slaughter. And surely, when war breaks out, you do not force these priests to go to war B against their will. If, therefore, this is reasonably done, how much more do these people fight, when others go to war, as priests and ministers of God, keeping their right hands pure, while striving through prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting justly and on behalf of him who reigns justly, so that all matters contrary and hostile to those who act justly may be overthrown?
By our prayers, we also cast down all demons, those who excite wars, those who violate oaths, and those who disturb the peace, and we grant more help to kings than those who are seen to be bearing arms. We also join in the labor of public affairs, we who, with justice, offer up prayers together with exercises and meditations that teach us to despise pleasures and not be led by them. Indeed, we fight for the king even more than the rest: we do not, indeed, fight under him as soldiers, even if he were to compel us, but we do fight for him, C as we form a special camp of piety through our intercessions to the Divine.
C 74. But if Celsus wishes us to play the general for the sake of our country, let him know that we do this too, not to be seen by men and out of vainglory in their sight. For in our inner nature, and in the very seat of our mind, there are prayers—sent up as if by priests—on behalf of those in our country. A Christians, however, benefit their countries more than other men, for they instruct the citizens and teach them to be pious towards the God of the universe; and they take up into a certain divine and heavenly city those who have lived well in these least of cities, to whom it might be said: "Thou didst prove faithful in a very little; come, enter into the great city," where "God stood in the congregation of the gods, and in the midst He judges the gods," and He counts you with them, if you no longer die as a man, and do not fall as one of the princes.
B 75. Celsus also urges us to hold office in the country, if it is necessary to do this for the sake of the safety of the laws and piety. But we, knowing that there is another system of country in each city, founded by the Word of God, call those who are powerful in discourse and in a sound life to govern the Churches; we do not accept those who are ambitious for power, but we constrain those who, out of great modesty, are unwilling to undertake the common charge of the Church of God too rashly. C And those who govern us well exist as if under compulsion, caused by that great King, whom we are convinced is the Son of God, God the Word. Now, if those who rule in the Church—which is the country according to God—are indeed called rulers of the Church, or if they govern according to what has been ordered by God, they are in no way defiled by human laws by this fact. Nor do Christians refuse such things because they shrink from the common duties of life; but they hold themselves back for a more divine and necessary service to the Church of God for the salvation of men; and at the same time they lead in a manner that is both necessary and just, and take thought for all: for those within, that they may live better day by day, and for those who appear to be without, so that they may come to be among those who are in the holy [reverent]...
are worthy, and thus truly worshipping God, and instructing as many as they are able, they may be tempered with the Word of God and the divine law; and thus they may be united to the God over all through the Son of God, the Word and wisdom and truth and righteousness who is one with Him, every one who is directed to live in all things according to God. B
76. You have, holy Ambrose, the end, according to the present and given ability, of the things commanded by you. We have encompassed in eight books all that we judged it worth the labor to dictate against the work entitled "The True Word" by Celsus. It will now be for the one who reads his composition and our defense of it to judge which of the two breathes more of the true God, and of the manner of piety towards Him, and of the truth that reaches to men, exhorting them to the best life by healthy dogmas. However, know that Celsus promised another work after this, in which he engaged to teach how one ought to live who might wish and be able to believe him. If, therefore, he did not write the work as he promised—the second discourse—it may be well for us to be content with the eight books dictated against his first discourse; but if he began and finished that one too, search for it and send the treatise, so that, in response to that also—whatever the Father of truth may grant us to dictate—we may refute the false opinions it contains; or if he says anything true, we may, without any spirit of contention, acknowledge it as well-spoken. C
FINIS. Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.
Here, in the Ruæan edition, there follows: 1° The book of Adamantius on the right faith in God, which the reader will find below; 2° A fragment of a work entitled *Philosophumena*, first attributed to Origen, but most recently to St. Hippolytus; the text of this book, recently edited in full, we shall provide with a Latin translation in the form of an appendix to the IVth century. ED. PATR.
NOTES OF AN ENGLISH SCHOLAR ON ORIGEN’S LITTLE BOOK ON PRAYER
From the edition of the same little book which appeared in London in the year 1728, edited by William Reading, A. M., librarian of the London clergy at Sion College.Col. 416, lin. 1. In the Stockholm codex, indeed, D this little book is anonymous; but it is appended to the Commentaries on Matthew, which bear the name of Origen, as if considered the offspring of that same parent: we do not, however, on that account judge that it should be attributed to Origen, were it not that the color of the diction and style, and the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures; and also the same dogmas, which are expressed in nearly the same words in his other writings; and also the Commentaries on Genesis, cited in the same way as in the books against Celsus; and finally the book inscribed to Ambrose, might most plainly demonstrate it to be his; so that it may be doubtful to no one that this is indeed that very book *On Prayer* of which Pamphilus makes mention in his *Apology*: which, indeed, we are of the opinion should be numbered among the last of Origen’s works; since we see so many of his sayings and dogmas, which are found dispersed in other writings, collected into this one little book.
Ibid. A, lin. 4. Read *δὴ*. You will find these particles in this little book often interchanged with one another through the carelessness of a scribe. — Bentley entirely expunges *δὲ* and *δὴ*.
Ibid. A, lin. 5. *χάριτι Θεοῦ*. This phrase is frequent in the apostolic writings, and that…
perhaps might be the reason why a scribe added that *Θεοῦ*, which seems to us redundant; for there is no reason to believe that Origen, tautologizing, wrote here "by the grace of God from God."
Col. 417, B, lin. 14, *χαρίζεται... τὸ θέλημα*. In the manuscript there is a lacuna of about two lines between *χαρίζεται* and *τὸ θέλημα*, which correspond to nearly three lines of our own. The Oxford editor wished to fill this gap from John xv, 15, in this way: *Χαρίζεται [εἶπε γὰρ, οὐκ ἔτι ὑμᾶς λέγω δούλους, ὅτι ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδε τί ποιεῖ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος· ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους, ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου, ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν. Λέγει ὅτι οὐκ οἶδε] τὸ θέλημα.* And perhaps he did not err in filling the spot; yet he less correctly connects *λέγει ὅτι οὐκ οἶδε* with what follows; since that *οἶδε* does not ask for anything in the adjuncts that is *ἑαυτῶν*, but strictly *ἑαυτοῦ* (just as in John: *οὐκ οἶδε τί ποιεῖ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος*), nor can any sense be made from the words conjoined in that way. I therefore believe the whole passage should be rather constituted and corrected thus: *Χαρίζεται [εἶπε γὰρ, οὐκ ἔτι ὑμᾶς λέγω δούλους, ὅτι ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδε τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ· ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους, ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου, ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν. Δούλοις οὖσιν αὐτοῖς γνωρίζει] τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου ἑαυτῶν, οὐκέτι, ὅτε διδάσκει αὐτοὺς τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, κυρίου εἶναι θέλοντος* — : For in these words, as I think, when thus read and punctuated, you will find neither sense nor syntax lacking. Indeed, in the words of John, instead of *τί ποιεῖ ὁ κύριος*, I have placed *τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ*, because it fits more aptly with what follows, and Origen himself reads it so in a parallel passage, Vol. I, num. 31, Comment. in Joan., *ἐπεὶ ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδε τί θέλει ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ, οὐ μένει κύριος γινόμενος αὐτῶν φίλος· καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦτο διδάσκει, φάσκων, οὐκέτι ὑμᾶς λέγω δούλους, ὅτι ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδε τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ.* It is not our business to mend the lacunae of the codex; and we have taken pains in this matter merely to prevent those things which follow from remaining entirely void of sense. I am quite satisfied with this conjecture of the learned man. Wherefore, I would wish these words of our Latin translation, *voluntate domini sui* [by the will of his lord], not to be changed even when he teaches them the will of him who wishes to be lord, but to be changed to these: *voluntatem domini sui, qui cum eos docet voluntatem suam, non amplius dominus esse velit, sed in amicum* [the will of his lord, who, when he teaches them his own will, wishes no longer to be lord, but [to be] a friend], etc.
Col. 417, lin. 1, *ἀλλ' εἰκὸς, ᾿Αμβρόσιε*. In almost the same way, Origen in his Comment. in Joan., having prefaced certain things sought from further afield, finally turns his discourse to Ambrose with these words: *τί δὲ πάντα ταῦθ' ἡμῖν βούλεται; ἐρεῖς ἐντυγχάνων τοῖς γράμμασιν, ᾿Αμβρόσιε, ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπε* [But what do all these things mean for us? You will say, as you encounter the writings, Ambrose, truly a man of God].
Ibid., *φιλοπονώτατε*. Origen praises the *φιλοπονία* [industry/love of labor] of Ambrose in a certain epistle found in Suidas, s.v. *Ωριγένης*, yet he nowhere else addresses him as *φιλόπονον*, as is most frequently done; but he uses only appellations taken from holiness and piety, namely: *φιλόθεε ᾿Αμβρόσιε*, *ἱερὲ ᾿Αμβρόσιε*, *πιστότατε ᾿Αμβρόσιε* (against Cels., pp. 315, 447, 501, 577, 629); also at the end of Vol. VIII and in Joan., Vol. I, 2, 6, 28, 32, and in Joan., Vol. XX, *φιλοθεώτατε καὶ φιλομαθέστατε* [most God-loving and most eager to learn], and ibid. Vol. XII, *φιλοθεώτατε καὶ εὐσεβέστατε*. Whence we conjecture that here, too, *θεοσεβέστατε καὶ φιλοπονώτατε* should not inappropriately be read as *εὐσεβέστατε καὶ φιλοθεώτατε*, which seems to fit more aptly the question proposed concerning prayers. The man Adamantius himself was certainly *φιλοπονώτατος* [most industrious], but his *ἐργοδιώκτης* [taskmaster/overseer], Ambrose, was *φιλομαθέστατος* [most eager to learn], as he later calls him toward the end, num. 33.
Ibid. A, lin. 5, *ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκλελοιπέναι τὰ γυναικεῖα... εὔχομαι*. By these words, Origen seems to indicate that Tatiana was at that time advanced in age; since in her, as in Sarah, the menses had already ceased: but he certainly does not boast of this here (for why would a woman A [provide] that for praise, which is common to all old women?); but having transferred the words, he preaches her chastity, in which, though perhaps their *γυναικεῖα πάθη* [female passions], that is, the base affections to which women are subject, had already subsided and ceased, as in the elderly body of Sarah the *τὰ γυναικεῖα ἔμμηνα* [female menses]. Therefore, he prays that she be such as the Apostle describes in 1 Tim. ii, 9.
Ibid. lin. 13, *ἐπιτήδειοι*. Read *ἐπιτηδειότεροι*. There is truly here, in the manuscript, a lacuna of about three lines, the last of which must be understood as *τὸν Ἀπόστολον* or *τὸν Παῦλον*, as is clear from the following, *τὸν διὰ τήν*. These things have already been observed by us. — RUEUS.
Ibid. B, lin. 2, *δέ*. Read *δή*. For he does not here transition to another thing, but Origen notes these things concerning the preceding words of the Apostle.
Ibid., lin. 9, *αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα*. These, as if they were the words of Christ Himself, Origen often repeats and explains in the following parts; which, however, do not exist in the Gospels, except that Matthew cap. vi, v. 33 has things that are twin in sense, though in words quite different. Therefore, the most learned Grabe does not unsuitably conjecture in *Spic. Tom. I, p. 14*, that these had been taken word-for-word from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Moreover, it is not only in this little book that Origen cites them, but also *contra Celsum lib. VII, pag. 728*: *ἔμαθε γὰρ [Χριστιανὸς] ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μηδὲν μικρόν, τουτέστιν αἰσθητόν, ζητεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ μεγάλα καὶ ἀληθῶς θεῖα* [For the Christian learned from Jesus to seek nothing small, that is, sensible, but only the great and truly divine things]. And *Tom. XV Comment. in Matth., n. 28*: *εἶπε γὰρ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, Αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν, καὶ, αἰτεῖτε τὰ ἐπουράνια, καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν.* Likewise *Tom. XXVIII Comm. in Joan., num. 4*. So also Clem. Alex. *Strom. I, p. 416 ed. Oxon.*: *αἰτεῖτε γάρ, φησί, τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστεθήσεται.* In *Strom. vero IV, p. 579*, he explains this through the words of Matthew: *ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ταῦτα γὰρ μεγάλα· τὰ δὲ μικρὰ καὶ περὶ τὸν βίον, ταῦτα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν.* So also Euseb. *Comm. in Psalm., p. 50*: *τοῦτο ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐδίδασκε, λέγων, Αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν.* Confer our annotations to lib. VII *contra Celsum*, num. 44. — RUEUS.
Col. 418 C, lin. 7, *ὁσίας*. Origen has it so in *Lib. II contra Cels., p. 487*, and in this little book, num. 9. In the same place, however, one also reads *ὁσίους*, as also num. 30, and *Comm. in Jerem.* and *in Joan. tom. XXVIII, n. 4*; and thus the editions have 1 Tim. ii, 8, which is certainly the true reading, as the same Attic usage follows in the next verse in *καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ*. However, in the Holmiensis codex, by a slip of the pen, *σμίως* seems written for *κοσμίῳ*.
Ibid. D, lin. 1, *μνησθείς*. So the ms., but read *μνησθῇς*. — Our annotation, in which we said the manuscript codex has *μνησθείς* correctly, should be held invalid. — RUEUS.
Col. 420 A, lin. 3, *ἔστι δὲ τοῦ καθὸ δεῖ*. Here it seems to me that the word *διδασκαλικόν* (or *παραστατικόν*) is missing, so that it might be, *ἔστι δὲ τοῦ καθὸ δεῖ διδασκαλικὸν τὸν μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε...*, precisely as Origen speaks in the preceding and following sections. Nothing is missing here, but *ἔστι δὲ τοῦ καθὸ δεῖ* ought to be changed to *ἔτι δὲ τοῦ καθὸ δεῖ*, which will depend on the preceding *διδασκαλικόν*. — RUEUS.
Ibid., lin. 4, *ἐὰν μή τι*. Origen reads later, num. 51, *ἐὰν μὴ ἐκ συμφώνου*, and *Comm. in Matth.*, *εἰ μή τι ἂν ἐκ συμφώνου... σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχή*. Doubtless, citing this passage thrice from memory, he brings it forth differently; do not think, indeed, that he described the variant readings of the copies the same number of times; which Millius, in *Proleg. 1478*, seems to have believed concerning the citations of the Fathers. Truly, the whole passage in the edition of 1 Cor. vii, 5 reads thus: *Εἰ μή τι ἂν ἐκ συμφώνου πρὸς καιρὸν, ἵνα σχολάζητε τῇ νηστείᾳ καὶ τῇ προσευχῇ, καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέρχησθε, ἵνα μὴ πειράζῃ ὑμᾶς*
ὑμᾶς* [the tempter, Satan]. Note, however, that Origen, in citing these words in this place, always omits "by fasting and," which was noted by others as well. A
Col. 420, line 7, *διὰ τούτων ... ἐὰν μὴ καί*. In the Oxford edition, contrary to the manuscript's authority, it reads *διὰ τοῦτο ... ἐὰν καί*, by which the sense of the entire passage is perverted.
Ibid., line 12, *τῆς συμφωνίας τὸ ἀσύμφωνον*. In much the same way, Origen's teacher, Clement of Alexandria, explains these words of the Apostle in *Stromata* III, p. 546: "The marriage-bond that exercises self-control by mutual consent for a time, for the sake of prayer, is a lesson in temperance; for he added, 'by mutual consent,' lest anyone should dissolve the marriage, and, 'for a time,' lest one who has married should, by practicing continence through necessity, slip into sin at some point; and mutual consent mediates temperate matrimony, leading both to prayer in a self-controlled manner, and to procreation with decency."
Ibid., line 15, *εἴ τι ἄν ἔχητε*. In the location cited here, Mark xi, 2, it reads *εἴ τι ἔχετε*. And Origen himself has it so later, no. 9.
Ibid. B, line 11, *φησὶν ὁρῶν δέ*. The Oxford edition begins a new section here, as if *φησὶν* were to be referred to what precedes; where, nevertheless, it has no place, but rather looks entirely to what follows—which, if taken separately, are devoid of both sense and syntax: for the order of the whole passage is this; after citing the words partly of Christ and partly of Paul himself, he adds, "Paul, knowing all these things... in accordance with [his] disposition... he says...," what then does he say? Certainly not all the things mentioned before, but those which he presently subjoins, "but the..." Thus, that light may shine upon an obscure passage, I believe it ought to be read and distinguished thus: *φησὶν* (ὁρῶν δὴ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ... καθὸ δεῖ) *τὸ δὲ τί προσευξώμεθα δεῖ*... For thus Paul says Rom. viii, 26, *τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα*.
Ibid. C, line 10, *τῷ Θεῷ*. Origen repeats this three times in what follows, and also in no. 14. But in the Roman editions [of Rom. viii, 26], in their place, it reads *ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν*.
Ibid., line 11, *δέ*. Read *δή*. For Origen notes these things concerning what preceded. B
Col. 421 A, line 12, *ψαλμῷ καί*. Read *ψαλμῷ δὲ καί*, as in the editions of 1 Cor. xiv, 15.
Ibid. B, line 7, *ἢ καὶ ἐν ἐπαγγ*. From these faulty [words], the Oxford editor forged equally faulty ones, viz., *λόγων οἳ καὶ εὐεπαγγελλομένων*. For me, however, it is beyond doubt that those words, *ἢ καὶ ἐν*, were written by a negligent copyist for *ἤκουσεν*, which the sense itself and the syntax demand: I read, therefore, *λόγων ἤκουσεν ἀπαγγελλομένων*... "he heard words being reported"; you have, however, *λόγους ἀπαγγέλλεσθαι* no. 18, *εἰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀπηγγελμένους λόγους* no. 19. The earlier Bentley found this correction, as we have warned. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 3, *προσεύχεσθαι*. This word is superfluous; and it seems to have been repeated here through the carelessness of a copyist, just as in the Vienna codex in Mill on Luke xi, 1; for in all others, both printed and manuscript, it is missing; nor does Origen recognize it in what precedes, nor even afterwards in no. 18, where he cites these words again.
Ibid., line 3, *αὐτοῦ ... ἄρα*. Between these words in the manuscript, a space of two lines lies vacant; nothing, however, seems to be missing.
Ibid., line 7, *ἀκροάσει*. Manuscript: *ἀκρεάσει*.
Ibid., line 9, *ἑώρα δέ μείζονος*. Thus almost Eusebius in Psalm., p. 530: "As those who have gone back beyond the prayers contained in the Old Scripture, the disciples of our Savior, approaching, requested Him to teach them how to pray," etc.
Ibid. D, line 2, *τῷ*. Read *τὸ*. For he does not speak here of a previous instruction (*πρὸς τὸ βαπτίζεσθαι*) necessary for attaining baptism, but of the subsequent instruction of those who [*πρὸς τῷ βαπτίζεσθαι*] besides baptism, were embracing also the teaching of John, and were received into the number of the disciples. Bentley preferred to place this correction earlier; it should be translated not "before baptism," but "besides baptism." Ruæus. C
Ibid., line 4, *πρὸς εὐχομένου*. Read separately *πρὸς εὐχομένου ... πνεύματος*, or *πρός* here is equivalent to *ὑπό* or *παρά*, "by him," "from him," as Hesychius. Examples, however, occur everywhere. The reading of the manuscript will not need correction if it is explained through the genitive, as they call it, absolute. Ruæus.
Col. 424 A, line 3, *τῇ γάρ*. I think it should be read *αὐτὴ γάρ*..., viz., Anna. Bentley's conjecture pleases me more. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 13, *ταύτας; καὶ ... αὐτάς;* Thus the manuscript. Read rather *ταῦτα; ἢ αὐτά;* namely, the things promised in the prayers. These are indeed the words of Hosea, xiv, 9.
Ibid., line 17, *λόγον*. Here in the manuscript follows a vacant space of about one line; but nothing seems to me to be missing.
Page 201 B, line 14, *σοι ... ἔνθα*. Between these words is a hiatus of two lines; where perhaps Origen had added another example similar to that of prayer. — This was already observed by us previously. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 3, *ἐπὶ τοῦ λεγομένου*. In the manuscript it is found wrongly written *ἐπὶ τοῖς ... λεγομένοις*; but for these, the Oxford editor substituted *τοῦ λεγομένου* little correctly, when it should clearly be read *τῆς ... λεγομένης*, viz., of prayer. Namely, *ου* was written for *ης*; which is a known flaw in manuscripts. See the note of the famous Mr. P. Needham in Hierocles, *De Provid.*, p. 248, 278.
Ibid., line 6, *δευτέραν ἐκάλεσε*. Between these words in the manuscript is an interstitial vacuum of two lines; but nothing at all seems to me to be missing, and the place cited here itself (Exod. viii, 8) clearly demonstrates it. — This was already observed by us previously. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 7, *εὔξασθε*. The manuscript has here *εὔξασθαι*, as well as a little later *τὴν εὔξασθαι*, by the usual error of copyists, interchanging vowels among themselves and with diphthongs.
Ibid., line 13, *πρὸς τῷ προτέρῳ*. That is, "beside the former," by which it denotes a vow. For these, however, the Oxford edition wrongly substitutes *πρὸ τῇ προτέρῳ*. — This was already observed by us previously, p. 201. Ruæus. D
Col. 425 A, line 9, *ὅτι ἐγώ*. Thus the manuscript. We correct this scribal error from the editions of the LXX (Roman and Oxford) to *ὅδὲ ἐγώ*. The Complutensian, however, has *ἰδοὺ ἐγώ*, which is indeed more convenient for the Hebrew.
Ibid., line 14, *ἀπὸ Φαραώ*. Read according to the LXX, *ἀπὸ σοῦ, καὶ τῶν ο. σου, καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ σου*.
Ibid. C, line 6, *ὡς εὔξεται τιμήν*. Manuscript: *ὡς εὔξεται τιμή*. We, however, judged it not unfair to follow the LXX editions in so manifest a matter.
Ibid., line 10, *σταθμῷ*. Thus the manuscript; but the editions of the LXX have *σταθμῷ*.
Ibid., line 13, *ἐάν*. In the editions of the LXX, *ἄν* is read here and in the following places.
Ibid. D, line 2, *Ναζιραίου*. For *Ναζιραίου*, the Oxford and Basil editions wrongly substitute *Ναζωραίου*, which has no relevance to the vow of consecration, about which the question is; but it designates only the place of birth or habitation: *Ναζωραίος, ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ*· as also *Ναζαρηνός*, Suidas. The word *Ναζιραῖος* is formed, or as others have it, *Ναζηραῖος*, from the Hebrew NAZIR, "separated"; which the LXX also retain. The Roman edition in Judges xiii, 5, *Ναζίρ Θεοῦ*, that is, *ἅγιον Θεοῦ*, verse 7. But Hesychius [has] *Ναζιρέος* (read *Ναζιραῖος ὁ Θεῷ ἀφιερωμένος*). — Thus we read, and thus we translate. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 3, *ἁγιάσῃ*. Read, as in the editions of the LXX, *ἁγιάσει*.
Col. 428 A, line 10, *ὅρκον, ἢ ὁρίζηται ὁρισμῷ*. In the manuscript, the copyist ineptly inverts these, *ὅρκον ὁρισμῷ, ἢ ὁρίζηται*, as the Oxford edition has it. — This has already been observed by us. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 18, *περὶ τῆς*. For *τῆς*, I think one should read *εὐχῆς*, so that it may be *περὶ εὐχῆς τοιαύτης*. For that is clearly
A the reading of the Holm. codex; it is poorly read as *παραδώσει*, just as in the Alex. cod. The Oxford edition has *Habet autem ed. Rom. διδοὺς δῷς*.
Col. 428, line 19, *γέγραπται... παγὶς ἀνδρί*. In the codex there is an empty space of nearly two lines between *γέγραπται* and *ἀνδρί*, but nothing appears to be missing except *παγὶς*, which we have added from Prov. xx, 25 for the sake of the sense. However, I confess, there exist two other examples in Prov. vi, 14 and xix, 3, from which a large part of this lacuna could be filled thus: *γέγραπται, Σήμερον ἀποδίδωμι τὰς εὐχάς μου· καὶ, οὐχ ἁγναὶ εὐχαὶ ἀπὸ μισθώματος ἑταίρας· καὶ παγὶς ἀνδρί*. But we do not place too much confidence in this conjecture. In the codex, however, *ταχύ τι τῶν* is wrongly written for *ταχυτήτων*. We have already pointed out that there is a hiatus here. Ruæus. — Ibid., line 22, *ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν*. The MS incorrectly has *ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν*, which we thought should be corrected from the editions, Acts xxi, 23. Walker, however, reads *ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν* in the codex, as we have edited. Ruæus. — Ibid. B, line 3, *δῆ*. Read *δέ*.
Ibid., line 10, *λεγομένου*. In the codex there follows here a lacuna of two lines, which the Oxford editor wished to fill with only six words, and poorly at that. We, however, do not interpose our own conjectures. This has already been observed by us. Ruæus. — Ibid., *οὕτω δὴ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ἄδοξος*. Namely, that one might acknowledge Providence, and yet say that God is not to be prayed to; for it is evident from what follows that something of this kind had been placed in the lacuna. Origen, however, notes the absurdity in which these heretics involved themselves, since there was no sect of any note among the philosophers which, while positing God and Providence, abolished prayers; even if it perhaps doubted their efficacy: for on this point those philosophers who were eminent indeed disputed, among whom were the Peripatetics, *μηδὲν φάσκοντες ὄνησιν εὐχάς*, as Origen says in lib. II *contra Celsum*. But to me it is by no means clear that the Peripatetics were of that opinion, much less Aristotle himself, who in his *Politics* VII, 8, 9, says that care should be taken above all for the worship of the gods, as being what benefits the community most of all; and in *De mundo*, cap. 6, he says: *πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀνατείνομεν τὰς χεῖρας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εὐχὰς ποιούμενοι*, which he did not wish, I think, to be done to no purpose, but that in this way they might render the gods propitious and obtain their requests.
Ibid., line 5, *ἐπὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες... σημαινόμενον εὐχῆς*. This passage is certainly corrupt: for *τὸ σύνηθες σημαινόμενον εὐχῆς* is clearly the same as *τὸ κοινὸν προσευχῆς*, since Origen notes here a different meaning for each from the common one; for he wishes the word *προσευχή* to denote not only prayer in the common signification, but also in a non-common one, just as *εὐχή* is taken for a vow; which he also strives to prove by the following example. Thus, therefore, I restore this passage: *τέτακται καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μὴ κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες ἡμῖν σημαινομένου τῆς εὐχῆς*. Thus above, no. 5, *τὸ ὄνομα τῆς εὐχῆς μὴ κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες τέτακται*, and in the present number, a little later, *μήποτε τὸ προσηύξατο, ἐπὶ τῆς συνήθως ἡμῖν ὀνομαζομένης τέτακται εὐχῆς, τὸ δὲ, ηὔξατο εὐχήν, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐν Λευιτικῷ τεταγμένου σημαινομένου*. This passage is not flawed by any error. B It is indeed true that *τὸ σύνηθες ἡμῖν σημαινόμενον εὐχῆς*, if taken generally and abstracted from all circumstances, is clearly the same as *τὸ κοινὸν προσευχῆς*. But it is false that *τὸ σύνηθες ἡμῖν σημαινόμενον εὐχῆς ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῆς Ἄννης λεγομένοις ἐν τῇ πρώτη τῶν Βασιλειῶν*, is clearly the same as *τὸ κοινὸν τῆς προσευχῆς*. For *εὐχή* in 1 Kings 1, 9, clearly signifies a vow in the sense common to us, which certainly is not the same as *τὸ κοινὸν προσευχῆς*. Ruæus. — Ibid., line 6, *ἔν γε περὶ*. Origen produces only one example here; how then does he say *ἔν γε τοῖς περὶ*, as if there were a preceding or following example? Surely you should read more correctly: *ἔν γε τοῖς περὶ τῆς Ἄννης λεγομένοις*, in these at least, he says, which are spoken of concerning Anna, the word *προσευχή* is taken in this sense. You will find these particles *τε* and *γε* often interchanged in the following. From our critique of the preceding note it is clear that one should not read *ἔν γε τοῖς*, etc., but simply *ἐν τοῖς*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 9, *ψυχῇ πικρᾷ*. In all editions, in place of these, *τῶν Ο'* reads *κατώδυνος ψυχῇ*.
Ibid. C, line 2, *μήποτε τὸ, προσηύξατο, ἐπὶ τῆς συνήθως*. Origen cited only one place in which he wished *προσευχή* to signify, in a non-common sense, a vow; but now he acknowledges that the word *προσηύξατο* in that very place can be understood *κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες* (i.e., of prayer): the distinction, therefore, which he posited between *προσευχήν*, prayer, or *προσευχήν*, vow, falls into ruin, since for the latter meaning he could produce no example—unless, by his own admission, a doubtful one—not to mention that Origen himself, both in the preceding no. 3 and the following no. 14, understands this prayer (*προσευχή*) of Anna as prayer *κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες*.
Col. 429 A, line 1, *παραδόσει* for *παραδῷς*. We follow here the editions of *τῶν Ο'*, Complut. and Ald.; for D ibid. B, line 4, *τινάς*. Meaning the heretics, the Prodicians, as Origen’s teacher Clement of Alexandria teaches (Strom., VII, p. 854): *ὑπεμνήσθην τῶν περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν εὔχεσθαι πρός τινῶν ἑτεροδόξων, τουτέστι, τῶν ἀμφὶ τὴν Προδίκου αἵρεσιν, παρεισαγομένων δογμάτων*: of whom he says Clement of Cyrene (i.e., the followers of Theodorus the atheist) was the predecessor, who, having abolished God, left no place at all for prayers.
Ibid., *οἱ τὰ αἰσθητὰ πάντη ἀναιροῦντες*. Read *πάντα*, that is, those who abolish all external rites of religion. Indeed, they denied that Christ was a man, and thus affirmed that he neither truly suffered nor rose again; for this reason they rejected his signs, i.e., baptism and the eucharist, and spurned prayers offered to God through his merits. Such were the Docetae (Ignat., *ad Smyrn.*, c. 7), the Marcosians (Iren. I, 18), Marcionites (Iren. V, 2), Archontici (Epiphan., *Hær.* XL; Theod., *Hær. Fab.* I, 11), Cainites (Tertull., *De bapt.*, c. 1), Ascodrutae (Theod., *ibid.*, I, 10), and finally the most impious offspring of all these, *οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Πρόδικον*, whom I consider to be specifically noted by Origen here. Confer Clem. Al., *Strom.* I, p. 544, 545, and Theod., *Hær. Fab.* I. Why he wishes *οἱ τὰ αἰσθητὰ πάντα ἀναιροῦντες* to be read, I do not understand, since the words of the manuscript codex return to the same sense, whether *πάντῃ* or *πάντα* is read. Ruæus.
Col. 432 A, line 14, *εἰκὸς τῷ θ.* *δέ* is missing; for he passes here to another argument of the heretics, as is noted in the margin of the codex: therefore read *εἰκὸς δὲ τῷ Θεῷ*.
Ibid. B, line 1, *αὐτῷ παρὰ τὰ*. The copyist inverted these; for the true reading is certainly *παρὰ τὰ αὐτῷ προδιατεταγμένα*. Bentley had previously noticed this error of the copyist and amended it, as we have noted at this passage. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 2, *μήπω*. Read *καὶ μήπω*, for *καί* is clearly missing. Bentley first thought of this emendation, as I have noted. Ruæus. — Ibid., line 3, *φαῦλον*. Thus the codex Alex. and others have it, instead of *κακόν*, which exists in the Roman edition, IX, 11. But this passage of Origen escaped Mill, as did that other one in *Com. in Joan.*, no. 25, where *ἀγαθόν* or *φαῦλον* is also read.
Ibid. D, line 2. MS *ἑβδόμῳ*, contrary to the truth of the matter. One should read *ἐννάτῳ*. Whether it should be read *ἐννάτῳ* will not be certain until it is established that the cited words, as they are now, were formerly the beginning of Psalm xc. Ruæus. — Ibid., line 6, *ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν Χριστῷ*. Origen here,
as I think, wrote for the sake of the meaning *ἐξελέξατο αὐτοὺς ἐν Χριστῷ*, while some annotator placed the words of the Apostle himself, *ἐν αὐτῷ*, in the margin; whence A eventually they were received into the context along with them, *ἐν Χριστῷ*; for Origen certainly did not write both, *ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν Χριστῷ*. Origen could write both, *ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν Χριστῷ*, namely, after the *ἐν αὐτῷ* which the Apostle has in Eph. 1:4, implying *τουτέστιν*, that is, *ἐν Χριστῷ*. Ruæus.
Col. 433 A, line 4, *ἐκ τῶν*. No meaning is derived from these; and they seem to me to be written erroneously for *ἐν Χριστῷ*. For these fit the place aptly, in which Origen clearly looks back to the words of the Apostle cited above, *ἐξελέξατο αὐτοὺς ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου*.
Ibid., line 10, *τῆς εἰκόνος τῆς δόξης*. Thus also Origen cites the words of the Apostle in Rom. 8:29, in tom. III of the *Commentary on Matthew*, num. 29, with the additions, to wit, *τῆς δόξης*: but in the same place, tom. XII, num. 27, he reads *συμμόρφους τῆς δόξης*, omitting *τῆς εἰκόνος*. Origen, being in a hurry, certainly confuses these words of Paul with similar ones, *συμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης* (Phil. 3:21), and adapts them to his own subject. But indeed in the *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, where he deliberately recites and explains this passage, he repeats it in the very same words at least five times, as it exists in the editions: *συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ Υἱοῦ*. Therefore, it seems to me that Millius wasted his effort when he corrected variant readings from places of this kind.
Ibid. B, line 1, *ὀνομαστός*. Read *ὀνομαστί*. Thus Origen above, *περὶ Κύρου ὀνομαστί προφητεύεται*, and elsewhere often. This emendation was first thought of by Bentley. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 11, *εἰ ὡς*. Read *ἢ ὡς*, which the very sense demands. — This had already been emended by Bentley. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 14, *τὸ δοκιμάζον*. Read *τὸ δοκιμασθέν*, or *δ δοκιμάζει*. Bentley had already warned that this should be read thus. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 7, *προδιαληπτέον*. In the manuscript codex it is read *προσδιαληπτέον*, as the Oxford edition has it. But *προδιαληπτέον* is superscribed by the same hand, which is certainly more apt for the place. "These things," he says, "must be treated beforehand," and they must be explained first. But similarly, about to speak of the same matter in *De Principiis* book III, chapter 1, he entitles it thus: *Περὶ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου ὀλίγα διαλάβωμεν... ἵνα δὲ νοήσωμεν τί τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, τὴν ἔννοιαν αὐτοῦ ἀναπτύξαι δεῖ... ἵνα σταθῇ τὸ ζητούμενον. Τῶν κινουμένων*, etc.
Ibid., line 7, *τῶν κινουμένων*. Origen has similar things in chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*: *Τῶν κινουμένων τὰ μέν τινα ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἔχει τὴν τῆς κινήσεως αἰτίαν, ἕτερα δὲ ἔξωθεν μόνον κινεῖται*, etc. Thus also Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* II, p. 487. *Τῶν κινουμένων τὰ μὲν καθ' ὁρμὴν καὶ φαντασίαν κινεῖται, ὡς ζῶα· τὰ δὲ κατὰ μετάθεσιν, ὡς τὰ ἄψυχα... ἕξεως μὲν οὖν οἱ λίθοι, φύσεως δὲ τὰ φυτὰ, ὁρμῆς... τὰ ἄλογα μετέχει ζῶα*. And thus almost Philo, *De allegor.*, p. 1091: *Ἡ μὲν ἕξις κοινὴ καὶ τῶν ἀψύχων ἐστὶ, λίθων καὶ ξύλων... ἡ δὲ φύσις διατείνει καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ φυτά*, etc.
Ibid. C, line 12, *λίθος*. Read *λίθοι*.
Ibid., *τὰ ἐκκοπέντα μετάλλου*. It is *excisa et eruta venis*, in which they were rooted, nourished, and grew. But *μέταλλον*, which indeed fits with stones, does not seem to be said very aptly concerning woods. See Casaubon and Salmasius in Spartianus’ *Vita Pescen.*, chapter 12.
Ibid., *ἤ*. Read *καί*. Perhaps the whole passage should be read thus: *λίθοι γὰρ, καὶ ξύλα, καὶ τὰ ἐκκοπέντα μέταλλα, τὰ τὸ φύειν ἀπολωλεκότα...* Thus a little later: *Λίθοις καὶ ξύλοις, τοῖς τὸ φύειν ἀπολωλεκόσι*. Origen refers to cut-off metals alongside stones and woods for the reason that all these things (which, while they remain in their own seats and veins, *ὑπὸ φύσεως κινοῦνται* and have a certain soul, to wit, *τὸ θρεπτικόν*), being snatched from their places, *ἄψυχα διαμένουσιν*, *τὸ φύειν ἀπολωλεκότα*. Confer chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*.
D Ibid. D, line 3. But this whole passage is corrupt, which I think should be emended thus: *Ἀπολωλεκότα (κἂν κινῆται καὶ ταῦτα τῷ ῥευστὰ εἶναι πάντα σώματα, καὶ φθίνοντα παρακολουθητικὴν ἔχειν τὴν ἐν τῷ φθίνειν κίνησιν) δεύτερον...* Thus almost in the place cited above, chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*, *ὑπεξηρήσθω δὴ νῦν τοῦ λόγου τὸ κίνησιν λέγει τὴν ῥεῖσιν τῶν σωμάτων*. Bentley proposes another emendation. Lord Fleuri, moreover, devised another, as I noted. But if that which the learned Englishman proposed pleases anyone more, let him translate with the London editor: "Although these also are moved because bodies are fluid, and while they decay, they have motion as a companion. Second, however," etc. Ruæus.
Col. 436 A, line 1, *ἢ ψυχῆς*. Read *καὶ ψυχῆς*, as above. But thus chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*: *φυτὰ, καὶ ἀπαξαπλῶς ὅσα ὑπὸ φύσεως καὶ ψυχῆς συνέχονται*. He means all vegetabilia, such as have in themselves *θρεπτικὴν δύναμιν*; for, as Aristotle says (*De anima* II, 4), *τρέφεται οὐδὲν, δ μὴ κοινωνεῖ ζωῆς*, since *τὸ θρεπτικόν* is *μόριον ψυχῆς* (ibid. c. 2) or *ψυχή φυτική*, as Galen calls it, *Περὶ φυσ. δυνάμ.*, book I. Confer Aristotle, *De plantis*, I, 1, 2.
Ibid., *ἐξ αὐτῶν*. Thus Origen, *Περὶ ἀρχῶν* III, 1: *Τῶν δὲ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τοῦ κινεῖσθαι τὴν αἰτίαν ἐχόντων τὰ μέν φασιν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν κινεῖσθαι, τὰ δὲ ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν· ἐξ ἑαυτῶν μὲν ἄψυχα, ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν δὲ ἔμψυχα.* Where by *ἄψυχα* he does not mean those things which he said above are moved from without, or are held by habit alone, stones to wit or woods, for these he says *ἄψυχα* are those which have the cause of being moved in themselves; by *ἄψυχα* therefore he here means (as Rufinus paraphrastically interprets) those things which indeed live, but are not animals, i.e., plants and those that are moved by nature alone. But these *ἄψυχα* he now calls opposite to animals, which are properly *ἔμψυχα*, if they are moved from themselves. But do not wonder that Origen sometimes says plants are *ἄψυχα*, and sometimes that they are moved by a soul, since it has not been settled among the philosophers themselves about that matter; *οὐ συνίσταται γάρ*, says Aristotle, *πότερον ἔχουσιν, ἢ οὐχὶ, τὰ φυτὰ ψυχήν*, *De Plant.* I. ... *μεταθέσει κινεῖσθαι τὰ ἄψυχα· κινεῖσθαι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀψύχων τὰ φυτὰ μεταβατικῶς φασιν εἰς αὔξησιν, εἴ τις αὐτοῖς ἄψυχα εἶναι συγχωρήσει τὰ φυτά*. *Strom.* II, pag. 487.
Ibid., line 4, *ἀπ' αὐτοῦ*. Read here, and a little later, *ἀφ' αὑτοῦ*. Thus chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*, *ἀπ' ἐμοῦ*. Bentley would prefer *ἀπ' αὐτῶν* and *ἀφ' αὑτῶν* instead of *ἀπ' αὐτοῦ* and *ἀφ' αὑτοῦ*, which is *ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 10, *τις*. Read *τι*. For the following demands it, *ἀνάγκη τοῦτο εἶναι λογικόν*. This had already been observed by Bentley, as we noted at this place. Ruæus.
Ibid. B, line 2, *ἰδίοις πάθεσιν ἐπιστήσας*. In the same way Origen discourses about this matter in chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*: *Οὗτος ἐπιστησάτω τοῖς ἰδίοις πάθεσι καὶ κινήμασι, εἰ μὴ εὐδόκησις γίνεται, καὶ συγκατάθεσις, καὶ ῥοπὴ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐπὶ τόδε τι διὰ τάδε τὰς πιθανότητας*, etc. But a little later I think it should read, *τίς γὰρ οὕτως διάκειται...*
Ibid., line 14, *δή*. Read *δέ*.
Ibid. D, line 2, *κατὰ τὸν εἰρμόν*. Thus *Philocal.*, chapter 25: *προατενίσας ὁ Θεὸς τῷ εἰρμῷ τῶν ἐσομένων*. And a little later: *ὄντος δὲ τοῦ ἐφ' ἡμῖν, ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιβαλὼν τῷ εἰρμῷ τῶν ἐσομένων προγνώσεται*, etc.
Ibid., line 5, *οὐχὶ τῆς προγνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ αἰτίας*. See Origen discourse more fully about this matter in *Philocal.*, chapters 21, 23, 25, and *contra Cels.* book II, num. 18 et seqq., and Eusebius, *Comm. in Psalm.*, pp. 255-259.
Ibid., line 6, *οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο*. This is, we do not act freely not because God (as is now put) is ignorant of what we are going to do, but because we have an innate faculty of acting freely, which, whether God knows they are future or not, always remains the same.
Col. 457 A, line 1, *πλέον*. Read *πλήν*.
πλήν*. A Ibid., line 2, *κατὰ τάξιν λαμβάνειν*. Read *τὸ* fere, *Contra Cels. lib. iv, num. 70*, "of what is in our power for each person, even if God uses the wickedness of the wicked for the ordering of the whole, assigning them to the necessity of the whole," etc. Ibid., line 6, *διατάττεται*. Read *διατέτακται*, so that it agrees in time with *ἔγνωσται*. So indeed above, *προδιατέτακται κατ᾽ ἀξίαν*. See this passage as to how these things may be more correctly emended by Bentley. Rueus. Ibid., line 7, *εὔξηται ποίαν*. Read *εὔξεται*, and *ποίαν*. I have read *εὔξεται*, but *εὔξηται* requires nothing; rather, it should be read *εὔξηται*, just as it is rightly translated in Latin: "what he is to pray for," is foreknown by God. Rueus. Ibid., line 9, *προκατειλῆφθαι*. In the codex it is written *προκατείληπται*, as the Oxford edition has it. But this seems to be corrected in the margin by the same hand, with the word divided thus: *κατειλῆ*, whence we have formed *προκατειλῆφθαι*, which the syntax also clearly demands; i.e., "to everyone it is reasonable, and that, what he will pray for... has been seized beforehand." That it should be read *προκατειλῆφθαι* had already been noted by Bentley. Rueus. Ibid., line 14, *εὔξασθαι*. Read *εὔξεσθαι*, in the future, as before, *ἔσεσθαι*. This had already been noted by Bentley. Rueus. Ibid. B, line 2, *τοῦδε*. Read *τήνδε*, meaning "the prayer." Ibid., line 3, *ἐὰν δέ τις ταράττηται*. Thus Origen, *Comm. in Gen.*, "Let us look first at what some of the Greeks, fearing that things are compelled and that what is in our power is in no way preserved if God foreknows the future," etc. Ibid., line 8, *βούλεσθαι*. Read *βουλήσεσθαι*, for it concerns the future. Ibid. C, line 1, *ἐμοὶ τόνδε πρέπει νικᾷν ἐν ταῖς εὐποιίαις*. Origen brings forth the same sentiment in similar words in *Comm. in Joan. tom. vi, num. 20*: "It is proper for the goodness of God to conquer in doing good, by anticipating him who is to be worthy, and before he becomes worthy, adorning him with ability." This, as well as other parallel passages here and there, we have noted from Origen himself, so that when you see him always consistent with himself, you may not doubt that this little book is his genuine product. Ibid., line 5, *τόνδε τὸν ἄγγελον*. Consult *lib. Contra Cels.* and *Comm. in Matth. tom. xi, num. 27, 28, and tom. xiv, num. 21*. Ibid. D, line 1, *Ἀμώς*. In this name editions vary, some reading *Ἀμώς*, others *Ἀμμών*, or *Ἀμών*, the last of which is most congruent with the Hebrew. See IV Kings XXI, 2, Chron. XXXIII, Jer. I, 2, and Millington in Matth. 1, 10.
Col. 440 A, line 2, *κατὰ μὲν τάς*. Perhaps the scribe inverted these; for the order is certainly better, *κατὰ τὰς μὲν ἀρχάς*. Moreover, regarding Judas the traitor, Origen has similar sentiments in *Comm. in Joan. tom. xxxi, n. 8*: "I think that Judas had once genuinely believed, not being a thief from the beginning, and he was such a man of peace of Christ, that he held good hopes for Jesus at one time, as a noble apostle." And likewise in number 1: "From the apostolic order, in which he was exalted, he has fallen away from having a disposition once similar to the rest." And number 12: "Being holy, he has fallen; he was not an enemy from the beginning... he once loved Jesus." Item number 8 in *Matth. tom. xvi*: "Judas, being of the same choice as the others, fell into the snare of the evil one." Ibid., line 5, *ἡ δὲ πρόγνωσις... ἐπὶ Ἰούδα*. He has almost the same genuine sentiments in *lib. i Contra Cels., pag. 406*: "I shall use the prophecies concerning Judas, and that of our Savior concerning him, as knowing he was about to betray... In the one hundred and eighth Psalm it is said from the person of the Savior, 'O God, do not neglect my praise,' etc." So also ibid., pag. 396. Ibid., line 14, *ἐν ἐμαυτῷ*. This seems to me to be written erroneously for *ἐν ἐμῷ υἱῷ*, or *ἐν ἐμοῦ τῷ Χριστῷ*, since God the Father is not called this in Holy Scripture, but here Origen clearly looks to the words of Paul himself, "He chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). Ibid., line 15, *ἐπιβαλλόμενος*. He has almost the same words in *Comm. in Gen.*, "God applying Himself to the beginning of the creation of the world." Ibid. B, line 2, *ἅμα τῷ γεννηθῆναι*. Confer Origen in *Matth. tom. xi, num. 27 et seqq.*, and in *Rom. p. 423*. Ibid., line 9, *μεταβαλλόμενος*. Read *μεταβαλόμενος*. Ibid., line 10, *λέγει*. Read *λέγῃ*. Bentley had already read it this way before. See this passage. Rueus. Ibid. C, line 2, *τοῦ ἡλίου ἐφ' ἡμῖν*. That is, of the sun's *free will*. But thus *Contra Cels. lib. v, pag. 585*: "The stars in heaven are rational and noble living beings... for their sensible light is indeed the work of the creator of all things, but the intelligible light, perhaps even of themselves, has come from the free will within them." And pag. 587: "Concerning the sun, and moon, and stars, we say also 'praise Him, all the stars'." And *lib. vii, pag. 791*: "We therefore praise the sun, as a good creation of God, and keeping the laws of God, and obeying the 'praise the Lord, sun and moon,' etc." Regarding this dogma of Origen, see Huet, *Origeniana lib. ii, quæst. 8*. Ibid., line 6, *αὐτὸν πάντα*. Read *αὐτόν, φησί, πάντα*, as in the preceding. Ibid., line 7, *εἰρήκαμεν*. Namely, num. 6, where he said God "takes according to order, for the direction of the whole, the things of each one of us which are necessary for the constitution of the world." Ibid., *τά*. Read *τῷ*. This was already noted as required by Bentley. Rueus. Ibid., line 10, *τῷ ἐφ' ἡμῖν... ἄστρων*. Either something must be added, or at least *being abused* must be understood. Ibid., line 14, *ἑτέρου*. This word seems less appropriate in this place; for who, I ask, is this "other," of whose "in our power" Origen here boasts? Not another, I opine, than (what he said above) "each one of those upon the earth," or any man whatsoever. Therefore, for *ἑτέρου* I think we should read *ἡμετέρου*, so that it may be *περὶ τοῦ ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἡμετέρου*, concerning our (referring to humans) free will; for this is what he prays about in the preceding, and which he here contrasts with the "in our power" of those in heaven. The syllable *in* dropped out by the concurrence of a similar voice. Bentley first thought of this emendation. Rueus. Ibid. D, line 5, *κρείττον*. You should read the contrary, *χεῖρον*. For the passage itself demonstrates this. Bentley had noted this for this passage. Rueus. Col. 441 A, line 4, *ὑπὸ λόγου*. Namely, the Creator, for he means the *Logos* here, through whom all things were made (Joan I, 3). Thus *Contra Cels. lib. v, p. 585*, he says that the stars are "rational living beings, enlightened by the light of knowledge by the wisdom, which is the brightness of eternal light," etc. Ibid., line 9, *περί*. It should clearly be read *παρὰ τὴν αὑτῶν αἰτίαν*, which is, from the free will within them, as in *Contra Cels., pag. 585*; so indeed later in number 29, "possessing a soul by free will, and according to its own cause... coming to be among the greater things..." And *Comm. in Gen.*, "things about to be done according to his own cause." And *Philoc. pag. 57*: "not so much according to their own cause as according to the ineffable kindness of God." And pag. 65: "to be a vessel honorable or dishonorable according to the cause of the creator." So also *lib. iv Contra Celsum, p. 556*: "to be placed in a most beautiful place according to their own cause." Hence, however, you may correct the same error in the Holmiensis codex in *Comm. in Matth. tom. x, num. 11*, "the cause not concerning the souls, but concerning that, the cause not being concerning it," where *περί* is written three times instead of *παρά*, which Huetius did not notice. That *παρά* should be read instead of *περί*, I have already warned. But I freely admit I poorly understood the sense of this passage in translating it. Therefore turn.
A I. 11, 53, under the name of Jeremias are cited the words of Zacharias viii, 17. *Ibid.*, line 4, the earth. Read "of the earth," as the LXX have, "from the land of Egypt." Thus says Epiphanius in *Ancor.*, sect. 113, "in Chanaan and in Egypt," is read instead of "in the land of Chanaan and in the land of Egypt," as all editions of the 70 in Exod. vi, 40 have. But the origin, I opine, is this error from the similarity of the letters T and Γ in the manuscript codices; whence we have also observed the particles *te* and *ge* often interchanged in this little book. *Ibid.*, line 6, from resentment. It should clearly be read on the contrary "from lack of resentment." So indeed in number 30, *mnēsikakein* (to bear a grudge) is written for *amnēsikakein* (to not bear a grudge). Consistent with these things is Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* VII, p. 884: "Nor are they yet passionless, unless they have become perfectly without resentment, according to the teaching of the Lord, by praying even for their enemies." And thus roughly the scholia on the Lord's Prayer [say]: "Then the Word, entreating [men] to be without resentment... for if one is not endowed with the virtue of non-resentment, he cannot obtain forgiveness." This emendation was first devised by Bentley. Ruæus. *Ibid.*, line 14, looking into. I opine this was written faulty by a copyist for "in heaven." For Origen seems here to look to the words of Solomon II Reg. viii, 30: "You shall hear in the place of your dwelling, in heaven." *Ibid.*, "Behold, I am here." These are the words of Isaiah lviii, 9, regarding which the same Origen notes almost the same thing here in *In Joan.*, tom. XXVIII, num. 5: "To those worthy of praying, such a promise is said by God regarding their prayer, 'And while you are still speaking, I will say, Behold, I am here.'" Similarly indeed Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* VII, p. 801: "He [the Gnostic] will call upon the Father; and He is near, and while he is still speaking, He is present." *Ibid.*, line 1, before him. It should be read, I opine, "on the first temptation," namely, Job i, 22, for the preceding lines cite from Job xl, 10, where it deals with the second temptation. But you will find "before him" written as "before the first" in number 12. Origen indeed notes here that those words, "with the lips," according to the LXX translation, are said not of the first, but only of the second temptation of Job; and so indeed he himself displays it later in number 30, just as they also currently stand in the Roman edition. From these things, therefore, it is clear that the words "with the lips," which in the Complutensian, Aldine, and Oxford editions are read in Job i, 22, are an interpolation made after the age of Origen from chapter ii, 10. *Ibid.*, lines 5, 8. Read *hōn... mēden*, which the construction demands. Conversely, it should be read from the manuscript codex *mē dein* (that it is not necessary), not *prostassōn mē dein genesthai* (commanding that it must not happen). Nor is *mēden* read in the manuscript codex, as the London editor has it, but *mē dein*. Ruæus. *Ibid.*, line 8, to be mingled... with the Spirit. Thus *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. I, num. 30: "The soul of each one has been mingled with the Holy Spirit, and each of the saved has become spiritual." *Ibid.*, line 11, of him saying. Read "to him saying," namely, to the one who has filled. Thus *Contra Cels.*, p. 586: "...of him who has filled heaven and earth, and saying, 'Do I not fill heaven and earth?'" etc. That it should be read "to the one saying," the former [scholar] Bentley already warned. Ruæus. *Ibid.*, line 13, yet. Since in the Holmiensis codex (as in others) *eti* and *esti* are written with almost the same stroke of letters, the Oxford editor, being deceived, displayed *esti* for *eti*, which drains the entire force of the sentence. We have already warned about this place. Ruæus. *Ibid.*, line 14, in the midst of those not knowing. He refers to the words of the Baptist, John i, 26. So indeed *Contra Cels.*, lib. V, p. 586: "Who [Christ] being with those who everywhere have cleaved to Him, is already also everywhere with those who do not know Him; and this indeed John shows... 'In the midst of you stands one whom you do not know.'" *Ibid.*, D, line 7, having prayed. Read "praying," as "about to be" follows shortly after. The former [scholar] Bentley already read this. Ruæus. Col. 448 B, line 7. *nōn*. So the copyist wrote,
perhaps for *son*, or even for *hymn*, which he had omitted in the preceding lines; for this, as I believe, is the true reading: "your Father gives the good gift from heaven." A
Ibid., lin. 9, *angels*. What Origen says here regarding angels and saints who have fulfilled this mortal life—namely, that they, being solicitous for the salvation of pious men, join their own prayers to the prayers of those—he repeats later at no. 54: "If we also desire a multitude of those whose philanthropy we wish to attain, let us learn that there are thousands of thousands... which assist in the salvation of those who pray genuinely," etc. And ibid. no. 64: "To placate God is followed by having all His friends as favorable—angels, and souls, and spirits; for they sympathize with the worthy... and assist... and pray together, and deem them worthy," etc.
Ibid., lin. 12, *the souls of the saints who have fallen asleep*. The Oxford editor, against the authority of the codex, moved these words to a new place and placed them much later, after "righteousness"; and then, wishing to mend the resulting dislocation, he added "of His" of his own accord after "offering," and added "they pray together" and "of Jeremiah" after "souls." A remarkable effort indeed; whence I see that nothing was accomplished, unless that he perverted both the sense and the syntax of each passage, which are sound enough by themselves. This has already been observed by us. Ruæus.
Ibid., lin. 14, *Tobit*. Thus this name is always written in this little book, just as in *Contra Celsum*, p. 591, and thus the LXX in the Complutensian edition have it. But in the Aldine, Roman, and Oxford editions, it is more correctly read *Tobit*. See Drusius on Tobit. B
Ibid. C, lin. 1, *was heard*. In codex H it is written incorrectly "he heard," which we have not hesitated to correct from the editions of the Seventy, the Roman, Aldine, and Complutensian. The Alexandrine codex, however, has "The Lord heard the prayer."
Ibid., lin. 5, *great Raphael, and*. Thus the LXX have it in the Roman and Oxford editions; but more correctly the Complutensian and Aldine have "great God, and Raphael was sent."
Ibid., line 4, *to heal*. Looking back to this, Origen says in homily 14 in *Numbers*: "For consider how you may be taken into the company of Michael the archangel, who offers the prayers of the saints to God; or certainly how you may be taken into the company and office of Raphael, who presides over medicine," etc. Compare book 1, c. 8, *De principiis*.
Ibid., lin. 14, *of Jeremiah, however*. He had said above that angels and saints who have completed this life "pray together with those who pray"; but having given the example of an angel praying together in Raphael—"Raphael, as he offers"—he now exhibits the example of a saint who has departed, in these words: "of Jeremiah, however." Consonant with these is Origen *Comm. in Joan.* tom. xiii, no. 57: "It appears, however, that the saints who have departed from this life care for the people, as is written in the Maccabees, *after very many years from the assumption of Jeremiah, this is Jeremiah the prophet of God, who prays much for the people*." C
Col. 449 A, num. 9, *to understand, and properly*. Read "to understand, and properly." The manuscript has "to understand, then properly," etc., and so our edition stands. Ruæus.
Ibid., lin. 10, *in this being perfected*. The word "then" seems to be missing here; for Origen means that those virtues which are begun in this life are finally perfected in the future life; read, therefore, "of those prepared in this life, *then* perfected," for it refers to the Apostle's words cited above, "but *then* face to face." Nearly the same in no. 25, "of the perfect *then* to be revealed, when the mind shall strike against the intelligible things face to face." I believe that "then" was omitted because of the similarity of the neighboring syllables *tote*. Nothing is missing, as is clear from our preceding observation. Ruæus.
Ibid. B, lin. 10, *to exercise*. Read "to exercise nakedly."
Ibid., lin. 12, *in the reference to himself*. In almost the same way, Origen discourses about this matter in homily 14 *in Jeremiah*: "Christ is judged in each of the martyrs... whom He says to be in prison when you are in prison, but Himself; not you hunger when you hunger, but Himself; not you thirst when you thirst, but Himself," etc. In tom. xii *in Matthew*, no. 2, "Jesus therefore says, *I was sick for the sake of the sick, and I hungered for the sake of those who hunger, and I thirsted for the sake of those who thirst*."
Ibid., lin. 13, *and the angels*. The sentence plainly demands that you read "if indeed the angels," or, which is better, "if, however, the angels." This had already been observed by Bentley. Ruæus. D
Ibid. C, lin. 5, *of the bodily*. More correctly, I think, "that of the bodily." It would be wrong to add "that," for the order of words here is "for a little time... of the bodily... sojourn, to have been the service of the angels toward Jesus."
Ibid., lin. 5, *how many*. The Oxford edition changed this into "by how much," whence no sense at all is made. To me, however, it seems that "how not" ("why not") should be read instead of "how many"; for the question is not about the number of angels, but only about their ministry. "Why is it not likely that the angels... assist more than the apostles?" Why not, he says, is it equal that angels labor more than the apostles themselves in propagating and establishing the Church for Christ? Consonant with these is Origen *in Joan.* tom. i, no. 14: "The angels are entrusted not with a single or brief evangelic ministry, nor only that which was directed toward the shepherds; but for the completion... the flying angel... will preach to every nation," etc. There is no cause why "how many" should be read instead of "why not." For even if the ministry of angels is sought here, not their number, nothing prevents him from noting the multitude of ministering angels in passing. Ruæus.
Ibid., lin. 7, *one by one*. Thus the LXX interpreters aptly rendered the Hebrew phrase "one by one" in Is. xxvii, 12, "Gather the sons of Israel one by one" (Complutensian edition), or "one by one" (Oxford edition), for in the Aldine and Roman the other "one" is omitted. This phrase, "one by one," has the same value here as "into one" in the parallel passage of John xi, 52, "that He might gather the children of God into one."
Ibid., lin. 9, *calling upon*. Add, or at least understand, "God." Thus Acts vii, 59, "They stoned Stephen calling upon [understand: the Lord] and saying."
Ibid., lin. 10, *to assist*. Thus in book viii *Contra Celsum*, p. 767, "[the angels] assist in the salvation of those who call upon God... deeming that they ought to obey them, and as if by one signal they come to the benefit and salvation of those who pray to God." And *Comm. in Joan.* tom. xxxi, no. 10, "Jesus sends not only saints, but also angels... for we shall not err, assigning the name of apostle also to these, concerning whom it is written, *all are ministering spirits*," etc. Confer homily 11 *in Numbers* and homily 25 *in Luke*.
Ibid., lin. 12, *to be called angels*. These words at first glance seem to signify that the bishops of the seven Asiatic churches were called angels because they had undertaken their care, like angels (in which opinion are the Fathers of the fourth century: Epiphanius, Hilarius Diac., Augustine, and other interpreters of later age of no mean note); nevertheless, when the matter is weighed, I think Origen here wished only this to be proved by the example of these angels—that which he had said before—that angels themselves preside over the administration of the Church, and labor for its increase and advantages; seeing that in the Apocalypse the presiding officers (presides) of the seven churches are expressly called angels. Origen certainly intended that there be two presiding officers for each church: one a man, the other an angel: and he supposed that the angels are specifically designated as presiding officers in the Apocalypse. For thus in *Numbers* homily 11: "They offer, he says, the angels the first..."
fruits of his own Church; to which angels, it seems, John likewise writes in the Apocalypse; for example, to the Angel of the Church of the Ephesians, or of the Smyrneans, or of the Laodiceans, and of the others which are written. Therefore, each of the angels offers the first fruits either of the Church or of the nation which has been committed to him to be administered." Likewise, Homily 20: "According to those things which John writes in the Apocalypse, an angel presides over each Church in general, who is either praised for the good deeds of the people, or is also blamed for its sins." Similarly also in Homily 13 on Luke: "Through the individual Churches there are two bishops, one visible, the other invisible; ... and just as a man, if he has managed the stewardship committed to him well, is praised by the Lord; if badly, he is subject to blame and fault: so also the angel. For it is written in the Apocalypse of John," etc. A
Col. 432 A, line 14, *euxomend* (praying). Read *euxamenô* (to one praying). As above, "having heard the prayer of the one praying." The former reading had been corrected by Bentley. RUEUS.
Ibid. B, line 6, *tô pistô*. Read *tou pistou dedeêmenou* (of the faithful one who has petitioned). I would prefer *tou pistôs dedegmenou* (of the faithful one who has received). For in the ms. codex it reads *pistôs*, not *pistô*. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 9, *suneuchetai kai sumprattei* (prays with and collaborates). So *Contra Celsum*, p. 789: "The angels of the worthy both perceive (with them) and collaborate and pray with and petition together," etc.
Ibid. C, line 6, *ê* (or). Read *kai* (and). The whole of this passage, however, appears corrupt; for a word is missing, and that *hagiou* (holy), which ought to have followed *euchomenou* (the one praying), is inappropriately added... Thus, therefore, I think it ought to be restored: "From the soul of the holy one praying, it goes forth sent into knowledge, and by the Word, and by faith, wounding..."
Ibid., line 12, *ho sunaptôn... ergois tên euchên* (he who joins works to prayer). In almost the same way, Origen interprets these words of the Apostle, "Pray without ceasing," in Matthew, tom. XVI, num. 22: "There must be nothing else in the Church of God but prayer of every holy action... being reckoned as prayer before God, even as it is possible to 'pray without ceasing'." B
Ibid. D, line 4, *ouk elatton* (no less). This passage is clearly mutilated, since there is nothing to which the verb *opheilousi* (they owe) refers; therefore, I have no doubt that it should be read *euchai de ouk elatton* (but prayers, no less), for the word *euchai* was absorbed by the preceding *euchê*. More native is the correction of Bentley, who, for *opheilousin*, reads *opheilousa* (owing). RUEUS.
Col. 455 A, line 2, *tris* (thrice). So Clem. Alex., *Strom.* VII, p. 854: "Some assign fixed hours to prayer, as the third, and the sixth, and the ninth."
Ibid., line 5, *tên hektên* (the sixth). Read *peri tên hektên hôran* (about the sixth hour), or *peri hôran hektên* (about the sixth hour), just as it exists in Acts x, 9; but Origen himself reads it so in *Contra Celsum*, book II, p. 386.
Ibid., line 4, *hôra* (hour). Read *hora* (he sees). The copyist, being blind, omitted *hôran* in the preceding line; but here, for *hora*, he put *hôra*.
Ibid., line 5, *tetrasin archais kathiemenon* (let down by four beginnings). So the ms.; the codex of the Acts also has it so, ancient, *Hearn* ed.; but through the obvious negligence of the scribe, both here and there, for *tettarsin* or *tessarsin archais dedemenon* (bound by four beginnings), as it is read in the editions of Acts x, 11. And thus Origen himself clearly reads it in *Contra Celsum*, p. 386, and not much differently Clem. Alex., *Paed.* I, p. 175, "a vessel bound by four beginnings." C
Ibid., line 6, *tên pro autou para tou Dauid legomenên* (the one before it spoken by David). This passage is most corrupt, which I thus restore: *tês prôtês kai para tô Dauid legomenês, to prôi* (of the first, and that spoken by David, the morning). Sometimes for *para tou Dauid* it is read *para tô Dauid*, and this passage does not seem to me to labor under any other fault from elsewhere. At least three times Origen urges one to pray. The first prayer from him is made at midnight. The second, which he calls the middle one, Peter performed about the sixth hour; which also he says before him Origen... D
A one ought to delete here either *kai* or *te*. He intends, moreover, that the cetus (sea-monster) which swallowed Jonah, is a type of that *megalou ketous* (great fish) of Job III, 8, through which he allegorically understands the devil. For he says thus in Homily 8 on Leviticus, citing these words of Job: "You see how in the Holy Spirit [Job] foretold the great sea-monster which the Lord was to slay, the type of which was that fish of Jonah; whence also the Lord, who was to slay that sea-monster, the devil, says: 'For as Jonah...'" etc.
Ibid., line 10, *exeleusetai*. The manuscript has *exeleusetai*. Walker reads *exeleusetai* in the manuscript. Ruæus.
Ibid. D, line 2, *pros tous... te*. The order is certainly better: *te pros tous metanoountas apotomia*.
Ibid., line 7, *kai idete*. The copyist omitted these, which we, because the sense demanded it, judged should be inserted from 1 Kings XII, where it reads thus: *kai nyn katastete, kai idete*.
Col. 460 A, line 1, *poiei*. Read *poiesei*. The LXX have *poiesei en ophthalmois hymon*.
Ibid., line 2, *Kyrion*. *Ton Kyrion* in LXX.
Ibid., line 4, *Kyrion*. Read, as previously, *ton Kyrion*, without *pros*, for the LXX always have it so, except in one place, Hos. VI, 7, where I do not know how it is read: *epikaloumenos pros me*.
Ibid., line 9, *ho therizon*. You see that *kai*, which in the printed editions of John IV, 36, stands before *he*, is here absent, just as it is absent in the Cantabrigiensis and Colbertinus 8 manuscripts according to Mill. But there is no reason for you to wonder that this passage was not noted by Mill, since he found the particle *kai* added in the Oxford edition, contrary to the authority of the manuscript.
Ibid., line 10, *de touto*. Read *de toutou*, namely, *pneumatikou*. For Origen explains these words of Christ thus in Book IX on Romans: "The harvest is named twice: according to the first, it is referred to the bodily; according to the second, to the spiritual."
Ibid., line 12, *pros*. Read *ton Kyrion*, without *pros*.
Ibid., line 15, *panti to*. The Oxford edition wrongly exhibited this inverted: *to panti*. But I think it should be read here just as a little before, *panti hagio k*.
Ibid. B, line 4, *panta te*. Read *panta ge*, or *panta de*.
Ibid., line 9, *aitomen autas*. Namely, prayers (*euchas*). Yet we are said less correctly *aitein euchas* (to ask for prayers). Therefore, for *aitomen*, I think we should read *epitelomen* (we perform), as the custom follows: *hos ekeinoi epeteloun*. So indeed, number 11: *euchai tris... epiteleisthai opheilousi*. And number 13: *he peri ton mystikon euche epiteleitai*. See another emendation of this passage, no less ingenious than Bentley’s, which he proposes. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 10, *kata to alethes*. Thus Origen roughly in his Commentary on John, tom. XXVII, num. 4: "If Paul is an imitator of Christ, and those who are like him, it is necessary for one who is praying according to the imitation of the prayer of Christ, having lifted up the eyes of the soul, and having raised them up from the things here, to speak thus to God the words of the prayer that are about great and heavenly [things], to be great and heavenly."
Ibid., *typikon*. He refers here to those things which he had said about the prayers of Anna and other saints, and he says that those great things which they obtained through their prayers were only small symbols and types of the "great and heavenly" [things] which Christ ordered us to ask for. For *typikon*, Bentley reads *typikos*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 11, *peri*. This being omitted, you might read more correctly *dia ton epigeion*.
Ibid., line 14, *aitesate hin' auton*. The sleepy copyist omitted some things here, as is clear from what follows; therefore I think this passage should be restored thus: *aitesate TA MEGALA KAI EPOURANIA, hin' auton tychontes, hos EPOURANION, basileian... kai, hos megalon, ton*. For you could hardly make a suitable meaning of the passage otherwise. See another emendation of this passage proposed by M. Claude Fleury. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 5, *epichoregese*. Read *epichoregese*. B It has already been observed by us. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 9, *ho Gabriel*. I think *tou* is missing, for it is certainly read more correctly thus: *ho tou Gabriel... logos*.
Ibid. B, line 1, *Theou*. *Theou autou* in the LXX.
Ibid., line 2, *thymei*. Read *thymou*, as the editions of the LXX rightly have it.
Ibid. C, line 3, *pasai*. *Kai* is missing, for the LXX is more correct: *panta ta erga sou, kai pasai*.
Ibid., line 13, *Abakoum*. This name is read written thus in Cyril, *Catecheses* 12 and 14, and in Eusebius, *De locis Hebraicis* in the verses on Keilah or Gabaa, and in the Aldine edition of the LXX. But in the Complutensian, *Abakouk* is read. In the Roman and Oxford editions, *Ambakoum*, and so also Eusebius has it in *Demonstratio evangelica* IV, 16; VI, 14, as does Origen himself in his book V, ch. 2, *De principiis* (as his words are cited by Justinian in his epistle to Menas, *Concilium*, vol. V, col. 673): "We think that also in the ode of Habakkuk, 'In the midst of two living creatures you shall be known' [supplying 'is to be understood'] concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit." For I do not doubt that these were the words of Origen, although they do not appear in Rufinus's version; obviously, as is his habit, Rufinus omitted them; but he retained the rest, which Justinian cites; and indeed, in the twin passage to this (*De principiis* I, 5), Rufinus exhibits this: namely, "We ourselves think also that text which is said in the Canticle of Habakkuk, 'In the midst of two, or of animals, or of two lives, you shall be known,' ought to be understood concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit." But that Justinian says that Origen intended to prove from this that the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures is not something we should believe; for it does not appear from the words which he produces, and (if any faith at all is to be placed in the interpreter Rufinus) the whole series of the argument on both sides is directed to demonstrating the opposite, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are to be removed from the number of creatures.
Ibid., line 14, *phonen*. In all the editions, *akoen* is read, and the Hebrew word sounds like that indeed.
Ibid. D, line 1, *zoon*. So the editions of the LXX. Eusebius, however, in *Demonstratio evangelica* VI, 15, approves another reading, namely *zoon*, "of lives." "In the plural," he says, "here and with the circumflex accent, *ton zoon* from the singular *tes zoes*, when the noun is understood... Therefore, he says, 'In the midst of two lives you shall be known,' one being the life according to God, and the other that according to man." And Theodoret reads thus: *zoon*, "of lives," understanding this life and the future one; just as Cyril does in *Hierosolyt. Catech.* XII, 20, as the learned Toutée correctly edited it. But the uncertain Rufinus in the passage cited above placed both: "in the midst of two, or of animals, or of two lives." But this ambiguity (and consequently Origen's own argument about Christ and the Holy Spirit from this passage) is correctly resolved by Theodotion, who, according to the Hebrew truth, translated it thus: *en meso eton zooson auton* (in the midst of the years, revive him), in Eusebius, *Dem. ev.*, page 279.
Col. 464 A, line 6, *pros ton on*. So wrongly the manuscript. The Oxford edition changed this for the worse, namely, *proton hon*. But the true reading, as I think, is *pros ton ho*, or, as I would prefer, *pros Theon ho*... For it seems that Origen is looking to the Apostle's words, 1 John...
A II, 21, "we have boldness toward God." I had already advised that it should be read with Bentley as *pros ton ho*. Rufus.
Ibid., we shall pray. Read "we shall pray" [*proseuxometha*], as it stands in the editions, Rom. VIII, 26.
Ibid., line 14, Gabaoth. In the codex, indeed, it is written here, and twice afterwards, Gabaoth. But all the editions of the Seventy have Gabaon, and Origen himself reads thus in *Matth.*, tom. XVII, num. 2, and *Hom. I in Jos.*, and *De Principiis* IV, 2, in the *Apology of Pamphilus*; which, since it is more appropriate to the Hebrew, I have not hesitated to insert.
Ibid. B, line 5, Elom. So Origen in *Matth.*, tom. XVII, num. 2, and *Hom. I in Jos.* But the Complutensian edition has *Aalon*, or indeed *Ailon*.
Ibid., line 11, "it seems to be an intercession" [*enteuxis*]. Namely, because of that "boldness" [*parrhesia*] which they used, which he placed in the definition of an intercession, num. 14. But to me indeed it seems that Samson here is rather praying [*proseukhesthai*] than interceding [*entynchanein*], since intercession, according to the Apostle, is an appeal for another, B and not, as this of Samson is, for himself. See 1 Tim. II, 1; Rom. VIII, 27, 34; Heb. VII, 25. You will understand soon, however, to what Origen's *leptologia* (subtlety) concerning the proper meaning of words leads.
Ibid. C, line 2, "to confess" [*exomologoumai*] is equal to "I give thanks." In the same way Eusebius explains these words of Christ in *Eccl. Theol.*, p. 151: "In the Gospels, when this is said by our Savior: 'I confess to thee, O Father...' we say that it signifies the thanksgiving regarding the infants; instead of, 'I give thee thanks, O Father,' the word 'to confess' is used."
Ibid., line 7, "to men." Read "to holy men," for the very sentiment and the antithesis which follows immediately demand it. Thus, also, a little later, "to holy men these things are to be offered." But here, as I think, "holy" [*hagiois*] has fallen out, because it was similar to "to men" [*anois*], an abbreviation written for "to men" [*anthropois*]. Bentley had already advised that "to holy men" should be read instead of "to men." Rufus.
Ibid., line 14, "to men." That is, to men in general, as men, whether they be holy or not. But perhaps "all" [*pasin*] is missing, so that it might be, "but also to all men."
Ibid., line 15, "one must intercede" [*enteukteon*], as... Stephen, "Lord, do not lay (this sin to their charge)." Stephen indeed is interceding here, but in the preceding words, "Lord Jesus..." he is clearly praying, so that Origen could have added to these, "but one must also pray to him, as the one who says, Stephen, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,'" and he might not have hesitated, I think, to say this elsewhere: but he was obliged to preserve here that more subtle distinction of words, and that which follows immediately, the "proper meaning of prayer."
Ibid. D, line 2, "not even to Christ himself." This, I think, is that statement of Origen condemned by the Fathers, which the anonymous author of the *Apology* mentions in Photius, cod. CXVII: "They say that he (i.e., Origen) commands not to pray to the Son," and Augustine, *Haer.* 43: "Origen dares to say that the Son is not to be prayed to with the Father, because he is not the author of the petitions of forgiveness, but a suppliant"; and also Theophilus of Alexandria in *Ep. Pasch.* 2: "Origen dared to say that the Son is not to be prayed to, nor the Father with the Son." And I confess that this is a harsh statement of his, and not undeservedly reproved by the Fathers; which, however, might perhaps be reduced to a sound sense if we more carefully weigh what he understands here by "through Christ" and by "prayer." Therefore, by "through Christ," he means the God-man, or the mediator, in so far as he is our High Priest and advocate before the Father; for he declares this openly both in this and in the following section. By "prayer," however, strictly spoken, he desires that which is offered to the Father through the mediation of Christ, just as he himself commanded, saying: "Thus pray ye, Our Father," and, "Ask in my name." Under this formal relation of advocate and high priest, he says that Christ himself is not to be prayed to; for with these premises set down, the Father alone, as the author of the petitions of forgiveness, is strictly to be prayed to; Christ, however, as high priest, is to be prayed to in a derivative sense, so that he may carry our prayers to the Father: for if we pray either to the high priest without the Father, or to the Father without the high priest, or even to both together, we will violate the order C of the persons or of the offices and the dispensation. That this is Origen's mind here will be evident from similar places in his books *Contra Celsum*, viz., lib. V, p. 580: "Every petition, and prayer, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the God over all, through the high priest of the living Word and God. But we will also pray to the Word himself, and we will intercede with him, and we will give thanks, and we will pray, if we are able to perceive the distinction between the proper and derivative meaning of prayer." And in lib. VIII, p. 751: "We worship the one God, and his Son... with supplications and requests, offering to the God of all our prayers through his Only-Begotten, to whom we first offer them, asking him, as high priest, to bring our prayers, and sacrifices, and intercessions to the God over all." And p. 761: "One must pray to the God over all, and one must also pray to the Only-Begotten... and one must ask him, as high priest, to refer the prayer that has reached him to the God and Father of him and our God." Of all of which this is the sum, namely, that the Father is to be prayed to, and Christ the high priest is to be prayed to; but the Father strictly, the high priest in a derivative sense, since this is the order of mediation, so that our prayers may be directed to the Father through the high priest. From this, however, it by no means follows that Origen denied that Christ himself, as God and the Son of God, is to be prayed to; for as far as his divine nature is concerned, he very often affirms that he is just as much to be prayed to and to be followed with all manner of worship as the Father; and that, either by himself alone, as in *Contra Cels.*, p. 586: "Let such a one pray to the Word of God who is able to heal him," or even together with the Father, *Contra Cels.*, p. 750, where, to Celsus objecting that an injury is done to God by Christians in that they worship Christ above measure, he replies thus: "If Celsus had understood, 'I and the Father are one,' and 'I and you are one,' he would not have thought that we worship another than the God over all; for the Father, he says, is in me, and I in the Father... therefore we worship one God, the Father and the Son." And a little later in clear words he acknowledges (which is what Celsus objects to them) that Christians "worship the Son along with God." It is not our business to discuss these things more fully; and therefore we have only noted these things so that you may see that Origen can be consistent with himself, when he says that Christ is sometimes to be prayed to, and sometimes not.
Col. 465 A, line 6, "Our Father." Origen seems to cite these from the Gospel of Luke, to which the preceding things belong; yet the case is certainly otherwise: for when he later, number 48 (where he describes the formulas of the Lord's Prayer from Matthew and Luke more accurately), does not acknowledge the words "of us, who art in heaven" as belonging to Luke, but ascribes them to Matthew alone, it is clear that here he is not using only the words of Luke, but, as is his habit, is accommodating the words of both, partly of the former and partly of the latter, to the present matter, so that the former, "teach us to pray," are brought from Luke, but the latter, "Our Father, who art in heaven," from Matthew. And indeed thus Eusebius, *Comm. in Psalm.*, p. 530, joins these of Luke with the words of Matthew: "The apostles asked him to teach them how to pray (Luke narrating)... therefore he says to them (according to Matthew): 'Thus therefore pray ye, Our Father, who art in heaven'." Do not believe therefore Mill on Luke XI, 1, who notes that Origen in *De Oratione*, p. 50 (this is in this place), acknowledges those words, "of us, who art in heaven," as being in Luke. Consult note to number 18.
Ibid., line 7, "another... in essence and sub-
-Ajection," is, *hupokeimenos*, that is, *subjectus*. But never elsewhere does Origen, nor anyone else among the Fathers that I know of, use the word *hupokeimenos* concerning the subjection of the Son; nor does it govern the genitive, but the dative; nor does the question of the Son’s subjection seem to be addressed here, but merely a distinction, insofar as He is a Person other than the Father. Wherefore I suspect that *hupokeimenon* should be read, so that it may be, "another than the Father in essence and *hupokeimenon*," that is, in essence and suppositum, which he says elsewhere he has demonstrated, namely against the Noetians, who affirmed that the Son was one with the Father in essence and *hupokeimenon* (in *Joan.* tom. X, num. 21); fighting against them here, therefore, he says that the Son is other in essence and *hupokeimenon*, that is to say, in *hupostasis*, just as he explains himself in the aforementioned place; for essence and *hupokeimenon* constitute *hupostasis*, that is, Person, which he calls individual essence (in *Joan.* tom. II, num. 6) and individual essence’s description (in *Joan.* tom. I, at the end of num. 41, and tom. II, num. 2, and against Beryll. ap. Euseb. *Eccl. Hist.* VI, 33). He means, therefore, that the Son, although He is one in essence with the Father (in *Joan.* tom. X, n. 21), is yet B other than the Father in His own individual *hupostasis*; so that they are two things in *hupostasis* (Contra Celsum, p. 751), but one God in essence; since that one essence is, which is distinguished by individual quality, and is one thing for the Father, another for the Son; yet it is indivisible, and therefore the same in both. For the Father, as Origen himself says, "becomes the Father of the Son in an indivisible and impartible way" (ap. Euseb. *Contra Marcell.*, p. 23), or "the Father is inseparable from the Son" (in *Matth.*, tom. XI, num. 19). Although, therefore, he calls the Son a "second *hupostasis*" (ap. Euseb. *loc. cit.*) and a "second God" (Contra Celsum, p. 608), he nonetheless affirms that both are one God (Contra Celsum, p. 750). But if you prefer to retain the codex’s reading, *heteros kat’ ousian kai hupokeimenos*, then you must understand *ousia* as *hupostasis* or Person; in which sense it has been shown by Bishop Bull in *Defens. fid. Nic.*, sect. 2, cap. 9, that the word *ousia* was used by Origen himself and other Fathers, so that the meaning of this passage is that the Son is a Person distinct from the Father and subject or subordinate to Him.
Ibid., line 12, *enargeian*. The Oxford edition wrongly changed this to *energeian*, namely, *para ten energeian* legethsomenon, saying that if it is called "to be prayed to" apart from efficacy—the sense of which I do not see. But Origen clearly means this, namely, that whoever asserts that the Son—and not the Father—is to be prayed to, does so absurdly and *para ten enargeian*, apart from the evidence of the facts. Origen often uses this phrase; e.g., *Comm. in Psalm.*, *para to enarges einai phamen*. And in *Joan.* tom. XII, num. 21: "as fools, and saying things contrary to things manifest." And in *Joan.* tom. II, num. 8: "things announced by him (Heracleon) *para ten enargeian*," for Ferrarius rightly read this from the Venetian codex, as did Grabe from the Bodleian (Spic. saec. II, p. 86), even if Huet there also retained the worse reading, *energeian*. D And indeed, so it is found edited in Simplicius *in Epictet.*, c. 32, *energos* for *enargos*; just as in this very booklet (for I omit others) the Oxford editor replaced *energos* with *enargos* in number 52. See Mill on *Ep. prim. ad Corinth.* XVI, 9, and *Philem.* V, 6.
Ibid., B, line 3, *leipetai*. The manuscript codex has this, as the Oxford edition showed: but the true reading is certainly *leipetai*, as the passage itself demonstrates; for Origen has proposed three modes of prayer in the preceding, namely, that we should direct our prayers either to the Son without the Father, or to both together, or to the Father alone; but the first two having been rejected, he now says that the third remains for us to use: "It remains, therefore, to pray to the Father alone..." Bentley had already warned that *leipetai* should be read. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 6, *omose*. Read *omose Kyrios*, as it is read in Ps. CIX, 4, and Hebr. VII, 21.
[COLUMN 1654] Ibid., line 11, *ou chre*. Origen says the same thing about the worship of the sun and stars (Contra Celsum, p. 585): "We say that one ought not to pray to those who are prayed to." Yet, a little later, he concedes to Christ what he denies to the stars, and when he teaches that He is to be prayed to, he says, "Let such a one pray to the Word who is able to heal him." And indeed, Origen himself often directs prayers to Christ; e.g., Hom. XI in Exod.: "Lord Jesus, grant to me that I may deserve to have some monument in your tabernacle," etc. And Hom. 5 in Levit.: "I ought to call upon my Lord Jesus, that He may make me find Him whom I seek," etc. And in Numer. hom. 26: "But let us pray to the Word of God, that He may deign to reveal these things to us."
Ibid., line 13, *Patri*. Read *Patera*. There is no necessity for *Patera* to be read, for *Patri* can refer to the preceding *ou*. RUEUS.
Ibid., C, line 2, *aithsete*. MS: *aithsetai*.
Ibid., *Patera mou, dosei*. So also a little later. But in the cited passage, John XVI, 23, it is read more correctly in the editions "...the Father in my name, He will give to you."
Ibid., line 7, *didaxei*. Read *didaxe*, which the sense requires. Bentley reads *didaxe*. RUEUS.
Ibid., D, line 4, *Hierousalem*. The Church is not named *Hierousalem* in the passage cited here, but—which comes to the same thing—*Sion*. Esdr. XLIX, 14.
Ibid., *tou prophetou*. Read *to prophete*. We have noted *para tou* instead of *para to David*, written wrongly, in number 12.
Ibid., line 5, *proskyneisthai... legetai*. The Church, specifically, is said to be *proskyneisthai*, "to be worshipped," *katachrestikos* (improperly/metaphorically). Origen therefore wishes that that [expression], *proskyne-satosan*, be said of Christ *katachrestikos*, namely, he is distinguishing here, as before in the word "to pray." Nevertheless, Origen himself clearly teaches in Contra Celsum, p. 586, that Christ is properly *proskyneteon* (to be worshipped). And in *Explan. in Epist. ad Rom.*, cap. X, he declares that the Son is to be worshipped, invoked, and prayed to just as the Father Himself, with these words: "If to invoke the name of the Lord and to adore God is one and the same thing; just as Christ is invoked, so Christ is to be adored, and just as we offer prayers to God the Father, so also to the Lord Jesus Christ; and just as we offer petitions to the Father, so we offer petitions to the Son; ... for the divine word teaches that one and the same honor is to be rendered to both, when it says, 'that they may honor the Son, as they honor the Father.'" Translated by Jerome. The translator of the *Explanation in Ep. ad Romanos* is Rufinus, not Jerome. RUEUS.
Col. 468 A, line 10, *aischyntheson*. So Co. Alex. Is. XLIX, 23. But the Complutensian edition has *ouch aischynthesontai oi hypomenontes auton*, "they shall not be ashamed who wait for Him," Vulgate. But Rom. and Ald. have *ouch aischynthesontai oi hypomenontes me*, "they shall not be ashamed who wait for me," and so indeed the Hebrew truth sounds. See Procop. in Isa. ed. Curter, and Orig. *Hexapla* ed. Montfauc.
Ibid., *kata ton eipein anti...* The drowsy scribe corrupted this whole passage; the Oxford editor faithfully followed him. But I judge that these things should be emended thus: *pos de ouk esti kai ton eiponta, ti me..., eipein auto, ti emoi proseuche;* that is, why then would He (Christ, that is) who said, "Why do you call me good?", not also say to this man (who, as stated above, thinking it necessary to pray to Christ, says...), "Why do you pray to me?" For this is clearly the meaning of this passage. As we have edited this place, so it is read in the manuscript codex of Walker. But he does not read *eipein an ti*, but *eipein an, ti*. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 11, *eis o Theos, o Pater*. In the same way Origen cites these things in Contra Celsum, p. 586, and in *Joan.* tom. I, num. 40, and tom. II, num. 7, which the Oxford edition here refers to Matth. XIX, 17, but I refer them to Luke XVIII, 19, whereas Origen himself, in *Matth.* tom. XV, num. 10, clearly says these things are not present in Matthew, but that in their place there is put, "Why do you ask me about the good? One is the good," but in Mark and Luke is read, "Why do you call me good? No one is good."
Otherwise," A if you should read this passage, "of love [is] more blessed than those serving in the slavery of fear." He refers back to the words of St. John, 1 Epist. iv, 18: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear." Consistent with these are the words of Clement of Alexandria, *Ecl. proph.*, c. 19: "Having progressed from faith and fear toward knowledge, a man knows how to say, 'Lord, Lord'; but not as the slave learned to say, 'Our Father,' having been freed by the Spirit of slavery—which is toward fear—and having progressed through love toward adoption, already revering through love what he once feared." Not unlike these are the words of Cyril in *Catech.* 1: "If anyone here is a slave of sin, let him be most ready through faith for the birth of that free adoption; and having put off the most wretched slavery of sins, and having acquired the most blessed slavery of the Lord, let him be deemed worthy to inherit the kingdom of heaven." — Bentley proposes another reading of this Origenian passage, which comes to the same sense. RUEUS.
"Except one, God." And indeed Tertullian reads thus, *unless one, God*, *Adv. Marcion.* iv, 36: whence it is clear that the addition B "the Father" is here. As to Luke, I refer it to the fact that Epiphanius (hær. 42) says that this was added by Marcion—not that I believe this was done by Marcion himself (for if he had done so, Tertullian would certainly have reproached him for it among other things; nor would Origen have used words interpolated by a heretic, to whom he was most hostile), but it seems more likely to me that the Fathers themselves—Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others—quoting these words paraphrastically, with "the Father" usually added, gave at length the handle to the followers of Marcion, so that, to establish their fancy concerning that good God, the Father of Christ, they might insert into the Gospel of Luke (which alone they used), just as Epiphanius notes, "the Father," as though it had been written by Luke himself, "No one is good except one, the God the Father," when nevertheless the true reading was, "except one, God," as the author of the *Dial. de Trin.* among the works of Athanasius, vol. II, p. 479, notes. And in this way Origen cites the words of Luke in the *Dial. contra Marcion*. Ibid., line 15, "our." Read "your" (*humōn*). For Christ here addresses his own worshippers. Bentley had already so read it. RUEUS. Ibid. B, line 11, "with me." These words at first sight seem to signify what was very firmly believed by the ancient Fathers of the Church, namely, that the Father is to be prayed to with the Son and through the Son; however, Origen's thought here is clearly different, since throughout this entire argument he denies that Christ is to be prayed to simultaneously with the Father. These words, therefore, "with me," are not to be joined with "the Father," but with the following "you," so the order of the words is: "it is necessary for you, with me and through me, to offer prayer to the Father," that is, it is necessary for you to offer prayers to the Father with me, your brother, and through me, your Pontiff. Ibid. C, line 3, "whether with the Father, or without." This is that of which Theophilus of Alexandria complains in his *Ep. Pasch.* 2: "Origen has dared to say that neither the Son is to be prayed to, nor the Father with the Son." But as for this complaint of Theophilus, Huet (Origenian., lib. 1) says it is absurd and self-contradictory; however, I marvel that a learned man who, as he himself says, copied these C contents of Origen with his own hand and thought of editing it, did not notice that Theophilus complains of nothing other than what Origen himself says here, namely, that the Son is not to be prayed to either by Himself or together with the Father; which, in my opinion, by no means conflict with each other. But it must be noted that the same Origen, who here contends that the Son is not to be prayed to with the Father, acknowledges on the contrary in lib. VIII *Contra Celsum*, p. 751, that Christians "reverence together with God, His Son," and in homil. 12 *in Ezech.* exhorts his hearers that they should "pray more attentively to Christ the Lord with His Father"; which things surely appear to be reconcilable in no other way than that which we proposed in the note to number 45. But see how different Tertullian is from Origen, who, explaining the Lord's Prayer, says that under the name "Father," the Son is also comprehended, and in the Father the Son is invoked; "For," he says, "I and the Father are one." Ibid., line 7, "of a slave." Read "of slaves." Ibid., line 12, "being ennobled." That is, being liberated. Hesychius, *exegenēsō* (read *exegenēsō*) "I will liberate." Origen acts thus, *Contr. Cels.*, p. 485: "We all confess that we desire to be instructed by the Word of God, so that we may bestow upon adolescents the exhortation appropriate to them, and demonstrate... how, having taken up a free mind, they might be ennobled by the Word." Origen here refers to the words of the Apostle, Rom. viii, 15; Gal. iii, 14; and Gal. iv, 1. Thus almost Eusebius in *psalm.* xli, 7: "He who has received from Him (Christ) the authority to become a son of God, when he becomes a son... is ennobled." D Ibid., "love... slavery." More correctly, as you might read this passage, "of love... more blessed than those... in the slavery... of fear." He refers to the words of St. John, 1 Ep. iv, 18: "Perfect love casts out fear." Consistent with these are the words of Clement of Alexandria, *Ecl. proph.*, c. 19: "Having progressed from faith and fear toward knowledge, a man knows how to say, 'Lord, Lord'; but not as the slave learned to say, 'Our Father,' having been freed by the Spirit of slavery—which is toward fear—and having progressed through love toward adoption, already revering through love what he once feared." Not unlike these are the words of Cyril in *Catech.* 1: "If anyone here is a slave of sin, let him be most ready through faith for the birth of that free adoption; and having put off the most wretched slavery of sins, and having acquired the most blessed slavery of the Lord, let him be deemed worthy to inherit the kingdom of heaven." — Bentley proposes another reading for this Origenian passage, which leads to the same sense. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 17, "disobeys." [Disregards]. This is almost what Origen says in *Matth.*, tom. xvi, num. 29: "We shall not receive in any other way, unless we ask. Let therefore the disposition be worthy of obtaining what we ask, and the prayer, being sent up with knowledge, worthy of being granted, and the requests heavenly and great, and worthy of being given by God." Col. 469 A, line 5, "of the Gospel." To wit, according to the Hebrews. See the note at number 3. Ibid., line 4, "to be added." Read "will be added" (*prostethēsetai*), for he cites the very words of that Gospel. Bentley retains "to be added" (*prostiestheai*), but for "you" which precedes, he reads "us." RUEUS. Ibid. B, line 1, "to each." Read "of each." Ibid., line 4, "has borne fruit." Read "had borne fruit." Ibid., line 7, "he has begotten." Read "he had begotten." Ibid., "the... begotten." Read "the... things [which have been] begotten." Ibid., line 15, "Aman and those... to destroy." This passage is clearly mutilated; and in the margin of the codex I have found noted by the same hand, "The writing is faulty." Therefore I judge that the whole passage should be restored: "Aman and those breathing along with him; and rather than wishing to destroy the soul of Judith, he had broken her power." The Latin translation of our text entails this restoration. RUEUS. Ibid. C, line 5, "Nebuchadnezzar." Thus Origen interprets this name allegorically, *hom. 18 in Jerem.*: "The King of Babylon, according to the history, is Nebuchadnezzar, but according to the anagogy, the Evil One." Confer *homil. 1 in Jerem.* Ibid., "they were silenced." Read "they were silenced" (*epephimōnto*). Ibid., line 9, "he has escaped." Read "has escaped" (*ekpepheuge*). Ibid., line 10, "the sea monster." Allegorically, to wit, the Devil. He refers to the words of Job iii, 8, according to the LXX: "he who is about to subdue the great sea monster." So also *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. 1, num. 17: "named the dragon, and the great sea monster, which the Lord subdued." And *De principiis* IV, 1: "There came against Job, he who subdued the great sea monster, and having given authority to his disciples to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy." For thus these words exist in Greek in the *Philocal.*. But he says that the type of this great sea monster was he who swallowed Jonah, above, number 13. Ibid., line 42, "unless bodies or similar." No suitable sense arises from any of these [words] in this passage; thus, therefore, it seems to me they should be emended: "if indeed for all, who receive in like manner... bodies, shadow is given in like manner." Bentley had already proposed the same emendation, and beyond this, for "to some [it is] given in like manner, shadow," he reads: "to some it is not given at all, shadow." RUEUS. Ibid. D, line 4, "according to the bodies." I suspect a mistake here; for shadows at midday vary not according to the condition of the bodies, but of the climates, and by far...
or more nearly or even at the very vertex itself. Thus, therefore, I read and distinguish: "occurring according to the climates; for to some..." Concerning the difference of shadows, one may be silent—see Achilles Tatius, *Isagoge in Arati Phaenomena*, cap. 51, and Pliny, *H. N.* II. 72–78.
Col. 472 A, line 10, *pephotismenous* (enlightened), i.e., "desiderari" here seems to be an error; it should be *pephotismenou* that is, "being enlightened." The vowel *epsilon* was certainly absorbed by the same vowel following it. Bentley had previously noted that it was missing. RUÆUS.
Ibid. C, line 15, *basileuonton* (of those reigning). Read *basileuontos* (of Him who reigns). Thus Origen, in *Matth. tom. xiv*, numb. 7: "He (Christ) is the King of the heavens, and just as He Himself is Essential Wisdom, and Essential Justice, and Essential Truth, so perhaps also Essential Kingship... reigning according to each of His concepts... He is Justice, and He is Wisdom, and He is Truth." But the Oxford editor thus perverted this passage: "Christ the King... of those reigning." Bentley proposes another emendation, namely *asaleuton* (unshaken), from Heb. XII, 28, instead of *basileuonton*. RUÆUS.
Ibid. D, line 6, *adranesteros, e kai touton* (weaker or even these). The particles "or even" (*e kai*), from the preceding words, seem ill-born and are clearly inept in this place, inasmuch as they disjoin things joined in sense: for those things, "admired by the foolish," are nothing other than what he said before, "weaker than a shadow." Thus, therefore, I think it should be read: "weaker than these shadows of the things... that are admired." By these, however, he means the principalities and powers of this world, as is clear from the antithesis. I have proposed another emendation in the notes. Let the reader judge which is closer to the true reading. RUÆUS.
Col. 473 A, line 13, *autarkos de en toutois*. Read *de*, and after *toutois* supply *egenemetha* (we have become), unless you prefer that it be added so that it reads: "we have become sufficiently satisfied in these things."
Ibid. B, line 2, *ede kai*. Origen, having finished those things which he had to say on the question "on prayer" in general, now proceeds to the explanation of the Lord's Prayer, which was the second part of that task which Ambrose had demanded of him; to which the transition is made in the manuscript codex thus: "Already of the problem and now to the following matter." The Oxford editor, however, prefixed a new title here (*Exegesis of the Lord's Prayer*) and restarted the numbering of the sections from the beginning: but why he did this I do not see, unless perhaps he mistakenly read *allon* (another, i.e., *logos*) instead of *athlon* (task/burden), and thought that a separate book or volume of the work was indicated thereby.
Ibid. C, line 1, *aphekamen*. But in the editions (Matth. VI, 12) *aphiemen* stands. Millius passed over this reading, *aphekamen*, which is not Origen's alone, but also that of the Barberini codex 1.
Ibid., line 3, *apo tou ponerou*. Note here that the doxology, which stands in the published editions, is missing. See Mill.
Ibid., line 5, *Pater, hagiastheto*. You see that Origen does not recognize here those words, "*hemon, ho en tois ouranois*," which stand in the editions of Luke XI, 2; just as the old Latin interpreter also did not recognize them, who likewise reads: *Pater, sanctificetur*. The Oxford editor, however, did not hesitate to insert them here against the authority of the codex, whence Millius, deceived, says in the Prolegomena (sect. 419, ed. Kust.) that it appears from this place that the words, "*hemon, ho en tois ouranois*," had crept into the text of Luke before the time of Origen. Wonderful indeed was the editor's rashness; nevertheless, I do not know if the negligence of Millius is more to be wondered at, who did not notice that he himself later acknowledged in the notes that these words, "*hemon, ho en tois ouranois*," do not appear in the model and therefore omitted them entirely in the Version. Moreover, that this reading, "Pater, hagiastheto," proceeded from the hand of Origen himself, these words of his (numb. 22), "Pater, which is written in Luke," demonstrate most plainly: for why would he say that "Pater" is written in Luke, which is also written in Matthew, unless he wanted *Pater*…
A B C D
to be understood as being written precisely because Luke—as we know—only records the name "Father," without the addition of "our, who art in heaven"? See the note on number 18.
Ibid., C, line 5, *Lord Jesus*. Origen reads these words of the Apostle in this way also in *John*, tom. XXVIII, num. 12; tom. XXXII, num. 7 and 19; though here a little later he has "Lord Jesus," just as is set forth in the editions of 1 Cor. XII, 3.
Ibid., line 2, *holy*. Read *of God*. For it is evident that Origen wrote this from what follows, calling the same thing the "holy Spirit" and the "Spirit of God." For how could it be "of God" if he had written "holy" in both preceding cases? And indeed, he himself cites these words of the Apostle in *Matthew*, tom. XX, num. 14, "they speak in the Spirit of God," as the editions of 1 Cor. XII, 3 have it. The matter comes to this: that the copyist, being less attentive, repeated "holy Spirit" from what preceded instead of "Spirit of God." Mill, indeed, says that Origen reads it this way not only in this place but also in his *Commentary on John*, and not just once "speaking in the holy Spirit," which, however, cannot be true unless he means by that "not once, not entirely"; since Origen, in *John*, cited only the latter part of the verse, and nowhere the former part, which is what is under discussion. Therefore, Mill acted with little consideration in appending a variant reading to Paul’s words as if on the authority of Origen, based on what is clearly a scribal error here and on poorly noted passages in *John*.
Ibid., line 6, *of those uttering the voice*. I read: *of those uttering this voice*. But it is thus above, "to have uttered this voice to him."
Ibid., line 7, *of the heterodox*. He intends, I think, the followers of Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus, of whom he says in *Homilies on Jeremiah*, 10, "You are near to their mouth, but far from their reins," that they invoke the name of Jesus, but they do not have Jesus; for they do not acknowledge him as Christ.
Ibid., D, line 4, *lord, the Lord*. Something seems to be missing here to complete the sentence, perhaps "truly, of those rightly saying," so that it might be, "of those only who speak from conviction... 'Lord,' [and] of those rightly saying 'Lord Jesus,'" for thus Origen himself roughly says in the passage twin to this, *Commentary on John*, tom. XXXII, num. 7: "He who speaks in the holy Spirit, 'Lord Jesus,' says it well. It is the work of one genuinely serving the Word to say well, 'Lord Jesus.'" He refers, one assumes, to John XIII, 15: "You call me... the Lord; and you say well."
Ibid., line 4, *such a one*. It seems read more correctly as "thus" [τοιούτως].
[τοιούτως]. A Ibid., line 10, *to be speaking* [λέγων]. Read *he speaks* [λέγει], as in the codex manuscripts Walkerus has; and therefore there is nothing to be changed. Ru.euss. Col. 485 A, line 5, *he speaks, Father*. Read *he speaks, Father*, as it is read three times in the following. Ibid. B, line 4, *image* [εἰκών]. I think it should be read as *images* [εἰκόνες]. And Origen himself in *John*, tom. II, num. 5: "The true God is the Father, in relation to the image, and the images of the image." And similarly *Contra Cels.*, pp. 755, 756. And in *John*, tom. I, num. 19. Ibid., line 7, *in* [ὅτι]. Read *in truth* [τῷ ὄντι]. So too shortly after, *in the body* [ἐν τῷ σώματι]. Ibid., line 10, *through all* [δι' ὅλων]. That is, completely, and not 'in half,' as he said a little before. Ibid. C, line 4, *him* [αὐτόν]. Read *it* [αὐτό], namely, the seed. — So also the previous one, Bentleius, had read. Ru.euss. Ibid., line 10, *let us think therefore* [τοίνυν νομίσωμεν]. Read *let us think therefore only* [τοίνυν μόνον νομίσωμεν], for the word "only" [μόνον] is plainly missing, which, as I suppose, was lost due to the concurrence of similar syllables. Ibid., line 12, *to pray* [προσεύχεσθαι]. Read *pray* [προσεύχεσθε]. We pointed out already that *pray* was to be read. Ru.euss. Ibid., line 14, *thrones* [θρόνοις]. So *Homil. 1 in Gen.*: "Before all things, heaven is said to have been made, that is, every spiritual substance, upon which, as upon a throne, God rests; and that indeed which we have called heaven, is our mind.... A man, who is placed in a body, if he is able to divide, he is called heaven, that is, the celestial man, according to the sentiment of the Apostle saying, 'For our conversation is in heaven.'" Ibid. D, line 1, *if* [ἐπάν]. Perhaps *if indeed it be said* [ἐπὰν δὲ λέγηται]. Ibid., line 6, *to be encompassed and held together* [περιέχεσθαι καὶ συνέχεσθαι]. Thus Hermas describes the immensity of God, *Past.*, mand. 1: "He himself is the only one capable of all things, immense," which in Greek, in Athan. vol. III, p. 252, stand thus: "The only one containing all things, and being the only one uncontained." Similarly, *Preaching of Peter* in Clem. Alex. *Strom.* VI, p. 759: "Uncontained, he contains all things." Likewise Novat. *De Trin.*, cap. 17: "Moses everywhere introduces God the Father as immense and without end; not who is enclosed by place, but who encloses every place; nor who is in a place, but rather in whom every place is, containing all things and complexing all things; so that by merit he neither descends, nor ascends, since he himself contains and fills all things." Confer Clem. Alex. *Strom.* II, p. 431, and *Strom.* VII, p. 845, ed. Oxon. B Col. 488 B, line 8, *nor then locally* [οὐδ᾽ ἄρα τοπικῶς]. This very thing Origen inculcates everywhere; e.g., *Contra Cels.*, p. 509: "We treat metaphorically of God descending... for God descends from his own magnitude, when he manages the affairs of men." And p. 510: "He descends by providence, and by dispensation, to human affairs." And p. 586: "Not locally, but providentially, he descends to men." So also p. 505: "Even if the Word, being himself God, comes to us, he does not become 'out of place,' nor does he leave his own seat, as if making it an empty place, and the other full." But similarly Clem. Alex. *Strom.* VII, p. 831: "For the Son of God never departs from his own height... not moving from place to place, but being everywhere always, and in no way contained," etc. Confer Orig. *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. XX, num. 16. It is clear that both Origen and Clem. Alex. attribute the same immensity to the Son as to the Father. Ibid., line 11, *is said* [λέγεται]. Ms., *is said* [λέγηται]. — In the codex, ms. Walkerus reads *is said* [λέγεται]. Ru.euss. Ibid. C, line 11, *I think together* [ἡγοῦμαι συνεξ]. There is missing here, I think, the word *necessarily* [ἀναγκαίως], so that it should be *I think necessarily examined along with* [ἡγοῦμαι ἀναγκαίως συνεξητακέναι], for the argument requires such a thing, and Origen uses this phrase everywhere. So above, num. 13, "these things I think to be most necessarily... said." And num. 24, "and it seems necessary to me that these things be most necessarily examined." And num. 31, "these things seem to me to have been necessarily said." So also in *Matth.*, tom. XI, num. 14, "these things seemed to me to have been necessarily considered." And num. 17, "these things... are necessarily said." And in *Joan.*, tom. X, num. 21, "I think that these things also were necessarily appended." And so often in the books *Contra Celsum*. Ibid., line 14, *to permit anyone... to be in a place*. This passage is plainly mutilated, which I restore thus: "and not to claim that God exists in any bodily place" [καὶ μὴ ἐν τινα ἐν σωματικῷ τόπῳ φάσκειν εἶναι τὸν Θεόν]; for thus at the beginning of this section: "words thought by the simpler ones to assert that God exists [in a place]." D Ibid. D, line 1, *him to be a body* [σῶμα αὐτὸν εἶναι]. So Origen *Hom. in Gen.*: "They induce that God himself is corporeal, which to think about God is most manifestly impious." And *Contra Cels.*, p. 778: "For God according to us is not a body; so that we may not fall into those absurdities into which those who philosophize on the things of Zeno and Chrysippus fall." But confer *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. XIII, num. 21-23, and tom. XX, num. 16, and *De Princ.* I, 1, and *Contra Cels.*, pp. 685, 715, from all of which it will abundantly appear how unjustly Jerome, in his epistle to Avitus and Theophilus Alex. *Ep. Pasch.* 1, cast suspicion upon Origen, as if he wished to attribute a body to God. Ibid., line 6, *of a different nature* [ἑτέρας φύσεως]. Read *to be of a different nature* [ἑτέρας εἶναι φύσεως], for the word *to be* [εἶναι] is plainly missing. Bentleius, instead of *it is* [ἐστί] which precedes, reads *to be* [εἶναι]. Ru.euss. Col. 489 A, line 2, *by the amount* [τῷ ὅσον]. Read *insofar as it depends on them, slightly* [τῷ, ὅσον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς, μικρῷ]. It can however be borne, that *the amount*, which Origen himself uses elsewhere, e.g., *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. II, num. 8, "excluding from all, insofar as depends on his hypothesis, the things of the world." But one should distinguish thus: "through the idiom, insofar as it depends on them, slightly." Ru.euss. Ibid., line 15, *in a brief [manner]* [βραχείᾳ]. Read *of a brief [place]* [βραχέος], that is, of place, which shortly follows. So also one should read as we have already signaled. Ru.euss. B Ibid. B, line 2, *corporeal paradise* [σωματικὸν παράδεισον]. You see here that Origen wishes the history of paradise to be understood not *bodily* [σωματικῶς], but *allegorically*. And so he says indeed expressly in *Contra Cels.* lib. IV, p. 532: "All these things [paradise, namely, and the trees planted therein] are not unseemingly interpreted tropologically." And from lib. IV, c. [?]: "How can one believe that God, as a gardener of men, planted a paradise in Eden? ... and if God is said to walk in the cool of the day in paradise, and Adam to hide under a tree, I do not think anyone should hesitate that these things are tropically signified through a seeming history, and not one that happened bodily, indicating certain mysteries." Concerning this opinion of Origen, see Huetius, *Origeniana* lib. II, quaest. 12. Ibid., line 12, *concerning these things... into Genesis*. In almost the same way Origen has spoken about Adam and paradise in the books *Contra Celsum*, saying that a fuller explanation is to be sought from his *Commentaries on Genesis*. So lib. IV, p. 530: "For primarily in the exegetical works on Genesis these things have been examined by us." And p. 534: "For primarily in the exegetical works on Genesis we have treated of these things." And lib. VI, p. 670: "Let him take up the things treated by us on Genesis," etc. Ibid. C, line 2, *in Deuteronomy*. The words cited here do not exist in Deuteronomy, nor is there anything similar to them (unless Origen intended those: "Your God walks about in your camp," cap. XXIII, 14), nor do they occur anywhere in the Scriptures joined in this way, except in II Cor. VI, 16, but the Apostle seems to have taken those partly from Levit. XXVI, 12, and partly from Ezech. XXXVII, 27. And Origen himself indeed in *Matth.*, tom. X, num. 13, seems to cite them from Leviticus: "The law saying in Leviticus... 'I will place my tabernacle among you... he places his own tabernacle among us, fulfilling what he said in the promise, I will dwell and walk about among them.'" The words however in
and so make them A partakers of the divine nature, as the Apostle speaks. II Cor. vi, 16, stands thus: *I will dwell in them and walk in them*. I am surprised, therefore, that Mill, who is accustomed to note down even the smallest things among various readings, did not observe that Origen here in his *On Prayer*, and *Contra Celsum*, page 756, and in *John*, tom. xiii, num. 24 (just as Eusebius, *Ecc. theol.* p. 186), reads: *I will dwell in them and I will walk in them*, and that in *Matthew*, tom. x, num. 15, he omits the *in them* in the former clause; for Mill noted down for this passage other things which are certainly of no greater moment.
Ibid., line 4, *of Him who is hidden, God*. The scribe wrote this sleepily; do not hesitate to read for it: *of Him who is hidden from the face of God*. For Origen clearly refers to the words cited above from Gen. iii, *Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of God*. And, indeed, in *Homily 16 on Jeremiah*, he says: *The wicked hide themselves from the face of God... but the saint is not hidden.* See the following note.
Ibid., line 7, *for so also Cain*. Origen has similar things in the *Philocalia*: *But also Cain, going out from the face of God... it seems to move the inquirer to seek what the face of God is, and what it is for someone to go out from Him.* And in *Homily on Jeremiah*: *Adam did not sin to excess... therefore he was hidden from the face of God; but Cain, who was more sinful and impious than he... went out from the face of God; so that in a comparison of evils, to be hidden from the face of God is the lesser, etc.*
Ibid., line 10, *in heaven... to every saint*. Thus Origen, *Homily 1 on Genesis*: *For every perfect one is made celestial, or made a heaven, and declares the glory of God; therefore the Apostles, who were heavens, etc.* But Origen was anticipated in these things by his teacher Clement in *Ecl. proph.*, ch. 51, 52, where, explaining the words, *The heavens declare the glory of God* (Ps. xviii, 1), he says: *The heavens are spoken of in many ways... and they are called heavens, primarily, indeed, the Lord, then also the first-created, after whom are the saints, the men before the law... then also the Apostles.* And Cyril, *Catech. mystag.* v, similarly: *There might also be heavens, they who bear the image of the heavenly, in whom God is dwelling and walking.*
Ibid., line 11, *in which are... luminaries*. Eusebius says almost the same: *All the saints... shall be shown to be luminaries in Him [Christ] for the new age, possessing their lights derived from Him.* *Eccl. theol.* p. 184.
Ibid., line 13, *dwells, the*. Something is clearly missing which perhaps should be supplied thus: *dwells THERE, ACCORDING to what was said... There, that is, in heaven.* However, the words *THERE ACCORDING to* seem to have been lost in *dwells*. Bentley proposes another emendation. RUEUS.
Ibid., D, line 6, *by the benefit and the word*. Delete *and*. Consonant with this, Origen reports to us in *Comm. in John*, tom. I, num. 34: *The Savior... that He might win all or perfect them, became man for men, and an angel for angels.* And num. 40: *He is a great high priest, not for men only, but for every rational being... having offered Himself, etc.* But concerning this opinion of his, see Huet, *Origeniana*, lib. ii, quæst. 3.
Ibid., line 7. Read *and in Him*.
Col. 492 A, line 3. For *dē*, read *de*.
Ibid., line 7, *removing*. There is nothing to which this *removing* refers; it should therefore seem that one B must read *to the remover*, namely, to the *Our Father who art in the heavens*. For he wishes such to be the force of that phrase, that it might signify the essence of God as being far removed from creatures, and that He is present to earthly things not *bodily*, but only *providentially*.
Ibid., line 8, *for He does not hold communion with those*. This passage is clearly corrupt, and perhaps it might be repaired in this way: *of generated beings, WITH WHOM He does not hold communion; for with those with whom He does hold communion (or dwelling, holds communion) to them glory... comes near.* For he seems to refer to those things which he C said above.
Ibid., line 10, *when he sets forth*. I believe something must be supplied here, or at least understood, namely, *the one praying*, whence I reconstruct the whole passage, which is clearly full of errors, thus: *THE ONE PRAYING, when he sets forth... but when, HAVING OBTAINED this, he begs that it might not remain WITH HIM and be kept; it is manifest, HOWEVER, as much as...* Almost the same is in Clem. Al. *Str.* vii, p. 855: *We pray that the goods from God might be given to us, and might remain. For it is not the same thing to ask that the gift remain, or [read: and] to be eager to receive the beginning.* And p. 837: *But true goods, those concerning the soul, he prays both that they be his and that they remain.* Where the phrase, *he prays that they might remain for him*, is clearly the same as what Origen says here, *he begs that it might be kept for him*. — In place of *Origen*, Bentley reads *he*. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 15, *according indeed to Matthew and Luke*. Origen had shown above that Luke differed from Matthew, and that he did not recognize those words, *our, who art in heaven*, which precede these; but now he notes that both return here to the same path, and agree in these, *Hallowed be thy name*; it is therefore more fitting that *according indeed to Matthew and Luke* be read, *both according to M. and L.*, that is, *following both Matthew and Luke*. See note ad num. 4.
Ibid., B, line 3, *of the Father*. For *of* read *then*, so that it may be, *what then is the name of the Father*. For the sentiment seems to require this.
Ibid., line 9, *contemplative*. Read *contemplative*, namely, *mind*. We have advised that the ancients should be read thus. RUEUS.
Ibid., C, line 7, *the, the Being*. Indeed, the codex Holmiensis has it so, but it seems to me that the article *the* is missing, so that it may be, *the name, the Being*. For this is that name which God claims for Himself in the passage cited here (Ex. iii, 14), where He answers Moses who was asking about His name: *I am the Being... Thus shalt thou say to the sons of Israel, the Being hath sent me.* By this name, therefore, *the Being*, Origen says that God’s *own quality* is signified, namely, that He is immutable and without any variation, precisely what Novatian discusses concerning the same matter: *Whatever that may be which is God, it must needs be always; that God may always be, keeping Himself in His own virtues: and therefore He says: I am what I am; for what is it that has this name for this reason, because it always maintains the same quality.* *De Trin.* c. 4.
Col. 494 A, line 15, *impetus of the building*. The Oxford edition translates these words badly into Latin as *in the street of the building*; since *impetus* of the building here signifies the onrush, or vehement zeal of building others by his speech, *impetus*, *surge*. Hesych. *violent motion*, Phavorin, from Suidas. Origen surely wishes his words to be like a *snowstorm*, delivered all at once and with a certain vehement outpouring, such as those of Ulysses (Hom. Iliad Γ, v. 222), *like to snowflakes*, i.e., *because of the density and intensity of the speech*, schol. But he himself says this in *Homil. 16 in Levit.*: *"Let my speech be expected," he says, "like rain, and let my words descend like the dew, like the shower upon the grass, and like snow upon the hay." Attend diligently, auditor; lest you think that we do violence to Scripture when, in instructing the Church, we say that either waters, or showers, or other things which seem to be spoken of corporally, are to be understood spiritually: listen to Moses, how he now calls the word of the law rain, now calls it dew, now calls it shower, now even says it is snow.* For *rume* Bentley reads *rōme* (strength). Which seems to be better.
Ibid., line 15, *for this reason he is able to these. These*. It seems that it should be read, *by this (namely, of the name) he is able to these; having conceived for this reason.*
Ibid., B, line 5, *is reminded*. You see here that Origen favors the *pre-existence* of souls, and that he therefore interprets the word *shall be remembered* in the passage cited above, Ps. lxxi, 49, Platonically concerning the reminiscence of things known in a prior state. And thus indeed he himself.
A And those, at least, who were in the same heresy, wanted to understand the word *shall be remembered*, Ps. xxi, 28, as Jerome teaches us in his Commentary on Ephesians [1, 17]. Regarding this opinion of Origen, Huet, *Origeniana*, book ii, quest. 6, will supply you with more.
Ibid., line 7, *the things here*. Since in what precedes Origen says that the nature of God and His attributes are to be understood by one who intends to pray rightly, so that the name of God may be hallowed, I do not see how he introduces *the things here* as things necessary to be understood, which pertain nothing to that *true and high knowledge of God*, as he calls it. The force of his own opinion therefore compels me to read here *the things of God* instead of *the things here*, that is, *what He is* (as he said above), and what His *own quality* might be; ignorant of which, one prays in vain, as he taught us before, no. 21: *If anyone is ignorant of God and the things of God, he is ignorant of the things of which he has need.* Hierocles, indeed, speaks eloquently on this matter: *The whole power of honor lies in the knowledge of the essence of those who are honored... For how could one converse with those whom he does not know?* etc. *Commentary on the Golden Verses*, p. 34, ed. Cant. To me, however, *the things here* seem to be retained and explained as Master Claude Fleury has interpreted them. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 8, *to ask* [αἰτεῖν]. Thus it is written in the codex, but erroneously, in my opinion, for *asking* [αἰτοῦντα], as the Oxford edition exhibited; for the sentence will not stand otherwise. *Him* [Αὐτόν], that is, *alone*. See the scholia on Homer, *Iliad* Θ, 99. *To ask* is to be retained, understanding *it is evident*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 10, *of the Father*. In place of this, it is clearly to be read *David*, for these words—*let us exalt the name*—belong to him, as he commands. But you will find *David* replaced by *God* by a similar error of a scribe in Eusebius *Against Marcellus*, p. 52.
Ibid., line 14, *of Him who exalts* [ὑψοῦντος]. Read *the exalting of the name* [τὸ ὑψοῦν τὸ ὄνομα], for that *-tos* is an obvious blunder of a copyist. The former Bentley had read *the exalting* [τὸ ὑψοῦν], or *of the exalting* [τοῦ ὑψοῦντος]. Ruæus.
Ibid., *having taken someone... exalts*. More correctly, as I think, you should read, *having taken, someone ... will exalt . . .* as it follows in the example, *I will exalt..., because you have taken me...*. Bentley adds *when* [ὅτε] before *having taken*. Which seems to be better. Ruæus.
Ibid. C C, line 6, *writing* [γραφη]. Read *inscription* [ἐπιγραφή]. For this is the inscription of Ps. xxix, *a psalm of the song*. — The former Bentley warned that *inscription* should be read. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 8, *still concerning* [ἔτι περί]. Perhaps *still, however, concerning* [ἔτι δὲ περί], as Origen often has in this little book. In the Oxford edition, however, it is wrongly read *it is concerning* [ἔστι περί].
Ibid., line 14, *instead of* [ἀντὶ τοῦ], *may it be* [γενηθείη]. Thus the anonymous Scholia on the Lord's Prayer, which we have added to this book, [state]:*Hallowed be* is not an imperative, but an optative, for example, *may it be hallowed* [ἁγιασθείη].
Ibid. D, line 3, *for the whole*. So almost Origen, *Contra Cels.*, p. 590: *For the whole hundred and eighth psalm contains the prophecy concerning Judas.* And in the same way, p. 406. See the note to no. 6.
Ibid., line 4, *to* [τῷ]. Read *with* [τῷ] *may it come to pass*, ... *to happen*. Bentley reads *the* [τὸ] *may it come to pass* ... *to signify*. Ruæus.
Col. 496 A, line 5, *as of one praying*. Origen attacks this impious opinion of Tatian, without indicating the name, in book v *Contra Cels.*, p. 672, *having misheard, I think, [Celsus], a certain wretched heresy, and one that interpreted badly [the words] "Let there be light," as if they were spoken optatively by the Creator.* But Clement of Alexandria, *Ecl. proph.*, cap. 38, explicitly [remarks]: *But we must speak against Tatian, who says that "let there be light" is optative.*
Ibid., line 7, *underneath* [ὑποκάτω]. Read *the underneath* [τὸ ὑποκάτω], as it exists in the editions of the LXX; for so Origen himself repeats it a little later.
Ibid. C, line 1, *of every saint*. Thus Origen in *Matt.*: *Perhaps each virtue is a kingdom of heaven, and all together are the kingdom of heaven; so that according to this, one [is] already in the kingdom of heaven who is—* D *if you seek the one whose kingdom of heaven is, you can say that Christ is theirs, insofar as He is Self-Kingdom..., reigning according to each of His notions... by which He is righteousness, and by which He is wisdom, and by which He is truth*, etc.
Ibid., line 4, *of one counseling*. It clearly appears from what follows that here it should be read, *of one reigning together*. For thus afterwards, *Lord... our sole reigning [King] together with His Christ.* The former Bentley had read this. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 5, *he made mention* [ἐμνημόνευε]. Read *I made mention* [ἐμνημόνευσα], namely in nos. 20 and 22. The codex has *I was mentioning*, according to Walker. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 9, *of every sinner*. Read *of every* sinner [τὸ παντὸς δὲ ἁμαρτωλοῦ], as it answers to the preceding, *of every* saint. The former Bentley read it thus. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 15, *of sinners*. Read *of sins*, as it exists in the editions [Gal. i, 4].
Ibid. D, line 4, *and may he be delivered*. This, as I think, the scribe repeated from the preceding; for I do not see why Origen himself would do that. However, the Oxford edition is less correct in omitting them entirely in silence.
Col. 497, line 6, *of us*. Read *of you*. But this whole passage in the editions, Rom. vi, 12, is read thus: *Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to obey it in its lusts.*
Ibid., line 15, *shall stand* [ἐνστήσεται]. The Ms. [has] *shall begin to stand* [ἐνστήσηται]. Walker in the Ms. reads *shall stand* [ἐνστήσεται]. Ruæus.
Ibid. B, line 12, *the one to be manifested*. Read *the one* [τοῦ τελείου], namely *the perfect one*, to be manifested. The former Bentley had read this thus. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 13, *attacks* [προσβάλλει]. Read *will attack* [προσβαλεί].
Ibid., *to the intelligible things* [τοῖς νοητοῖς]. The Oxford edition wrongly exhibited here, *of the intelligible* [τοῦ νοητοῦ]. This has already been observed by us. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 4, *to the things before*. Origen here, as at the end of the little book, and *De principiis* iv, 2, reads the Apostle's words in Phil. iii, 13-14 inversely, where in the editions they are thus: *forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before.*
Ibid., line 5, *to the... kingdom*. Read *of the... kingdom... extremity*. There is no reason why *of the kingdom* should be read. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 2, *Belial*. The Oxford edition exhibits *Belial* [βελίαλ], whence Mill, deceived, says that Origen in *On Prayer* reads *Belial*. And yet Origen, not only here but also in other places omitted by Mill (sc. *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. xxxi, nos. 16 and 19, and *Contra Cels.*, p. 605), reads *Belias*. And so indeed Hesychius [says] *Belias, a dragon*, just as Suidas [says] *the Apostle means by Belias in the Hebrew language the apostate, and what concord has Christ with Belias*. I do not deny, however, that the reading *Belial* is more consistent with the Hebrew. See Drusius, *Commentary on the Hebrew words of the New Testament*. We have already hinted that *Beliar* exists in the codex Ms.
Col. 500 A, line 8, *to one sitting* [καθεζομένῳ]. Read *to one about to sit* [καθησομένῳ], for he is speaking of the future.
Ibid., line 17, *of the regeneration*. Origen clearly looks to Christ's words, Matt. xix, 28, *in the regeneration*, and shows, contrary to what others want, that they are not to be joined with the preceding *having followed me*, but with the following *when He shall sit*, while he explains *regeneration* by *resurrection*.
Ibid. B, line 1, *as in heaven, and on earth*. Origen above, no. 18, describing the whole prayer after Matthew, reads these things thus: *as in heaven, and on earth*, as they exist in the editions; so therefore, I judge that they should be read here too, for he certainly intended to repeat the same words.
Ibid., line 11, *will happen* [συμβήσεται]. Ms., *will begin to happen* [συμβήσηται]. Walker in the codex Ms. reads *will happen* [συμβήσεται]. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 14, *in heavens* [οὐρανοῖς]. Read *in heaven* [οὐρανῷ]. For thus in this section he repeats *in heaven* ten times, and not once *in the heavens*.
A Col. 501 A, line 2, *will be drunken* [μεθυσθήσεται]. Ms., *will be drunk-* [μεθυσθή-].
Ibid., line 6, *he comes* [ἔρχεται]. Ms., *is coming* [ἔρχηται].
Ibid., line 9, *allegorizing* [ἀλληγορῶν]. It is so above at the end of numb. 23, "For it is not absurd that he [Christ] is strictly the throne of the Father, being more allegorically called heaven, and his Church, named earth, ..."
Ibid., line 10, *heavenly* [οὐράνιος]. In the manuscript the word is almost erased; but from the traces it appears to have been *ounios*, that is, *heavenly* [οὐράνιος]; which, as it fits the place, we have not hesitated to restore, although *strictly a throne* [κυρίως θρόνος] could be read here not inappropriately, as above at numb. 25. Walker in the manuscript codex reads *worthy* [ἄξιος], but not *heavenly* [οὐράνιος]. Ruæus.
Ibid., B, line 1, *of his Father* [αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πατρός]. The copyist, as I think, has inverted this for *of the Father of himself* [Πατρὸς αὑτοῦ].
Ibid., line 4, *the will* [τὸ θέλημα]. It seems that *of the Father* [τοῦ Πατρός] is missing.
Ibid., line 9, *will be deposited* [παραθήσεται]. Ms., *will be deposited* [παραθήσηται]. Walker in the ms. codices reads *will be deposited* [παραθήσεται]. Ruæus.
Ibid., *of this* [τούτου]. Namely, of the Gospel according to Matthew. He says *of this* because he is now occupied in explaining the article of the Lord's Prayer, which exists only in Matthew, as he stated at the beginning of this section.
Ibid., C, line 7, *the... corrected* [τὰ ... διορθωθέντα]. Read *of the corrected* [τῶν διορθωθέντων], which the syntax plainly demands. — But the syntax will not demand it if at line 9 you read *by the authority* [τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ] instead of *the authority* [τὴν ἐξουσίαν]. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 13, *to find* [εὑρεῖν]. Read *he found* [εὗρεν]. For both the sense and the construction of the words require this; specifically, *he found the man* [εὗρεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον] ... to say. Bentley reads *will say* [ἐρεῖ] for *to find* [εὑρεῖν]. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 15, *and* [καί]. Delete. But it is read thus in Phil. ii, 8, *he humbled himself, becoming obedient* [ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος].
Col. 504 A, line 1, *being examined* [ἀνακρινάμενος]. So it is written wrongly in the manuscript *being examined* [ἀνακιρνάμενος], which the sense itself demands. But to this matches Origen *Contra Celsum* p. 594: "We say these things, not separating the Son of God from Jesus; for the soul and body of Jesus have become one with the Word of God after the dispensation." Ibid. p. 474: "We are persuaded... his mortal body, and the human soul in him, have passed into God by communion, and indeed by union and by mixture with that [Word]." Likewise page 608: "The Word... we say, was made familiar and united to the soul of Jesus." Ibid. page 669: "The soul of Jesus... is joined to the Lord, to the Word himself, and to Wisdom itself, and to Truth itself, and to Justice itself, which if it is so, the soul of Jesus is not two in relation to the firstborn of every creature." Similarly *Comm. in Joan.* tom. i, num. 37, he says, *the man of the Son of God being mixed with his divinity*. Confer *Comm. in Matth.* tom. xvi, num. 8, and in *Joan.* tom. xxxii, num. 17. Walker in the manuscript codex reads *being mixed* [ἀνακιρνάμενος]. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 14, *from heaven* [ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ]. So almost Origen *hom. 8 in Jerem.*: "Each of us has heavenly and earthly works. Earthly are the works which bring down he who treasures them upon the earth to the earth related to them ... Again, since the places are related to the works, he brings up he who treasures in heaven to those things which are in heaven, who has borne the image of the heavenly."
Ibid., line 13, *heavenly* [οὐρανίοις]. Read *heavenly* [ἐπουρανίοις], for he repeats the Apostle's words cited above. Bentley reads either *in the heavens* [οὐρανοῖς] or *heavenly* [ἐπουρανίοις]. Ruæus.
Ibid., B, line 1, *image of the earthy* [εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ]. Origen here transfers the Apostle's words (I Cor. xv, 49) said of the descendants of Adam to the *spiritual hosts of wickedness*, allegorically understanding by *earthy* the devil himself: which he does similarly in *Comm. in Joan.* tom. xx, num. 20: *child of the devil, becoming according to the image of the evil father, from whom are modeled the images of that earthy one; for that first earthy one* [χoϊκοῦ]... etc. So also *Comment. in Matth.* tom. xv, num. 18: "As is the earthy, that is, the evil one, such are also the earthy ones."
Ibid., *who is the beginning* [ὅστις ἐστὶν ἀρχή]. Origen here allegorically attributes to the devil what was said of Behemoth in Job xl, 14, according to the Septuagint. But he pursues the same matter more fully in a passage twin to this, *Comm. in Joann.* tom. i, num. 17: "There is also a beginning and as of generation... but I think that the thing signified is proclaimed more clearly in Job, that is, *the beginning of the creation of the Lord, made to be played with by his angels*. For one might suppose that of those existing in the generation of the world in the beginning the heaven and earth were created. It is better... first of those in the body, him who is called the dragon, also named somewhere the great sea-monster, which the Lord tamed... for this reason the Lord calling [it]... says, that is, the beginning of the creation of the Lord, made to be played with by his angels." Similarly tom. xx, num. 21: "*Child of the devil, becoming according to the image of the evil father, from whom are modeled the images of his earthy one; for that first earthy one* [οῦ]... *having fallen away... worthy to have been the beginning... not of a creature, nor a work, but a creation of the Lord, made to be played with by his angels*." But Cyril of Jerusalem catechizes after Origen, saying: "For the beginning is the devil, a creation of the Lord, made to be played with, etc."
Ibid., line 2, *of the made* [πεποιημένου]. Read *made* [πεποιημένος], for it refers to *who* [ὅστις]. But it is so near Job, *it is the beginning made*. And in places from Origen himself and Cyril cited above...
Ibid., C, line 2, *is the earth* [ἐστὶν ἡ γῆ]. Read *is earth* [ἐστὶ γῆ], that is, earthly [γήϊνος], not *the earth* [ἡ γῆ], the earth itself. So in what follows, *we are earth* [γῆ ἐσμεν], *we have been considered earth* [γῇ λελογίσμεθα], *no longer to be earth* [μηκέτι εἶναι γῆν].
Ibid., line 5, *is heaven* [οὐρανός ἐστι]. So also Origen in *Matth.* tom. xv, num. 7: "He [Christ] is the King of heaven, reigning... of the one who has become, because of bearing the image of the heavenly [man]." Likewise in *hom. 8 in Jerem.*: "For there is a righteous heaven... and we say that those who carry the heavenly man, and they themselves are heaven; for if it is said to the sinner, 'earth you are, and to the earth you shall go,' it would not be said to the righteous, whose is the kingdom of heaven, 'heaven you are, and to heaven you shall go'?" ... So almost Tertullian, explaining this article of the Lord's Prayer: "From the interpretation," he says, "the figurative of flesh and spirit, we are not heaven and earth."
Ibid., line 6, *we pray* [εὐχόμεθα]. Read *we may pray* [εὐχώμεθα], as presently there follows *we may ask* [ἀξιώσωμεν]. I had also advised that it be read so. Ruæus.
Ibid., *will* [θέλημα]. Read *will of God* [θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ], as it is read in the preceding and following.
Col. 505 A, line 1, *remains* [μένει]. Read *will remain* [μενεῖ], for he is speaking of the future; and thus a little later, *they will be temperate* [σώφρονες ἔσονται], *they will be righteous* [δίκαιοι ἔσονται], *we shall all be heaven* [ἐσόμεθα πάντες οὐρανός].
Ibid., line 5, *and on* [καὶ ἐπί]. Read *so it may be also on* [οὕτω γένηται καὶ ἐπί]... just as in the preceding; for these words seem to have been omitted here only by negligence.
Ibid., B, line 11, *Caphar-naum* [Καφαρναούμ]. The manuscript codex correctly. But the Oxford edition changed this as an error into *Caper-naum* [Καπερναούμ], as it is read passim in the Gospels. Yet not here alone does Origen have *Caphar-naum*; indeed, in *Comm. in Matth.* tom. xii, num. 11, 14, and tom. xiii, num. 45, and in *Joan.* tom. x, xi, xviii, xxxi, of which places Mills has not noted even one anywhere. So also Eusebius reads *De loc. Hebr.*: "Caphar-naum, a village in Galilee of the Nations." And in V: "Chorazin, is, he says, a village of Galilee... distant from Caphar-naum twelve miles." And so it is often read in Epiphanius *haer. xxx et li*. See Drusius, *Comm.*
A on the Hebrew terms in the New Testament and notes on Matt. iv, 15, and Reland, *Palæstina*, vol. II, p. 682. Ibid., line 12, *ζητεῖτε* (seek). Read *ζητεῖτέ με* (seek me), as it stands in the editions, Jo. vi, 26. — I have also published the passage thus. RUEUS. Col. 508 A, line 5, *ὡς περὶ ἑτέρου ὄντος* (as about another being). One seems to miss *παρ' αὐτόν* (besides him), so that it might be *ὡς περὶ ἑτέρου παρ' αὐτὸν ὄντος* (as about one being other than him), just as he repeats it in the response a little later. Origen had said, namely, that the *ἐπιούσιος* (supersubstantial) bread is Christ himself, and furthermore that it is the Word of God, by which the soul is nourished: but to this, he says, someone might object, he who wishes Christ alone to be understood by this bread, that he does not teach us to ask for Him in such a way as if some other *ἐπιούσιος* bread existed besides himself. Ibid., line 6, *διαλέγεται* (he discourses). Ms.: *διαλέγηται*. — Walker in his manuscript codex reads *διαλέγεται*. RUEUS. Ibid., line 7, *Μωϋσῆς* (Moses). In the editions of Jo. vi, 32, it is read: *οὐ Μωσῆς δέδωκεν ... ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ' ὁ Πατήρ μου* (it was not Moses who gave ... from heaven, but my Father). Ibid., line 8, *ὑμῖν* (to you). Ms. incorrectly: *ἡμῖν* (to us). Ibid., line 15, *ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ* (the bread... from the...). Read: *ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν, ὁ ἐκ τοῦ* (the living bread, the one from the...), as it is read in the cited passage, John vi, 51; for it appears that Origen did not omit those words *ὁ ζῶν* (the living) here, from what follows: "we ask for the living bread," if below: "the living bread which came down from heaven," to which he clearly refers as though cited before; which words, however, if you take them out of this place, will nowhere be found in the preceding text. But Origen himself cites these words thus in *John* tom. x, num. 15: "I am the living bread, which came down from heaven." Ibid. B, line 1, *ζήσει* (he shall live). Origen also has it thus in *John* tom. x, num. 15; but in the editions of John vi, 51, it is read *ζήσεται* (he shall live), just as Origen himself also reads in *Matt.* tom. xi, num. 44, and Eusebius in the *Psalms*, pp. 85, 471. Ibid., line 4, *πᾶσα τροφή* (all food). Origen uses almost the same words in *John* tom. x, num. 13: "All food is, more loosely speaking, called bread, as is written concerning Moses in Deuteronomy: 'Forty days he did not eat bread, and did not drink water.'" Ibid., Ms.: *λέγηται* (is called). Ibid., line 15, *ἔχετε* (you have). Ms.: *ἔχητε* (you may have). Ibid. C, line 4, *ἀληθὴς ... ἀληθής* ... Origen also reads this in *John* tom. x, num. 13, as does Eusebius, *Eccl. Theol.* p. 179, which Mill did not notice. However, the true reading, I believe, is *ἀληθῶς* (truly), as it stands in the editions of John vi, 55, and Origen himself reads it so in *Matt.* tom. xvi, num. 7. Ibid., *πόμα* (drink). The manuscript codex here indeed has *τόμα*; which is a mere error of the scribe; we therefore, by the consensus of all the codices, have not hesitated to insert in its place *αἷμα* (blood) from John vi, 55, just as Origen himself reads in *John* tom. x, num. 13, and in *Matt.* tom. xvi, num. 7. Ibid., line 9, *ζήσει* (he shall live). Eusebius reads this twice in *Eccl. Theol.* p. 89. But Mill did not cite as witness to this reading either Origen or Eusebius in John vi, 57, where in the editions it is read *ζήσεται*. Ibid., *δέ* (but). Read: *δή* (indeed). Ibid., line 12, *πίωμεν* (we may drink). This does not befit the flesh of Christ, of which Origen is now speaking; it seems to me, therefore, that it should be read thus: *ὅταν δὲ τρώγωμεν αὐτόν* (but when we eat him), so that it may refer to the words cited above: "he who eats me." Ibid. D, line 1, *ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες* (the fathers ate). There are missing here: *ὑμῶν τὸ μάννα* (your manna), which exist in John vi, 58, just as *τὸ μάννα* is missing in the Cantabrigiensis and Colbertinus 8 codices, cited by Mill; he indeed confides so much in those codices that he judges that *τὸ μάννα*, which is in the editions, should be rejected as a falsification (*Prolegom.* sect. 1493); but regarding those distinguished men, since we require diligence here, who did not note that this passage of Origen supports them, we disapprove of the judgment delivered too rashly, in that by the faith of two codices (for he himself declares them to be wondrously corrupted) he rejected the reading of all the others, which is apt and proper for the place; and for that reason alone judged that *τὸ μάννα* ought to be deleted, understanding *τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ* (the bread from heaven). He might perhaps have made much of this passage of Origen, which we judge to be in truth corrupt, and to be corrected from the editions: *ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν τὸ μάννα, καὶ ἀπέθανον* (your fathers ate the manna, and died). Ibid., line 2, *ζήσει* (he shall live). Origen also reads this in *John* tom. vi, num. 26; but in the editions of John vi, 58, it is read *ζήσεται*. Col. 509 A, line 7, *μὴ περὶ σωματικῶν* (not concerning bodily things). Thus Origen in *Matt.* tom. xxii, num. 31: "...not of solid food, and of things called figuratively 'herbs', etc." And *hom. 27 in Num.*: "The true food of the rational nature is the Word of God." And *hom. 5 in Levit.*: "Flesh in the Scriptures signifies solid food and perfect doctrine. I know there is a certain food of the soul of milk, and another of herbs, and another of flesh, etc." Ibid. C, line 11, *διαφερούσης, αὐτήν* (differing, it). Read *διαφέρουσαν* (differing), and distinguish thus: *συνηνέχθησαν ... περὶ αὐτῆς, μηδαμῶς διαφέρουσαν αὐτὴν ἐξενηνοχότες* (they were brought together concerning her, in no way having brought her forth as differing). B Bentley proposed another emendation which seems more natural. RUEUS. Ibid., line 14, *ἐνωτίζου, εἰς τὰ ὦτα δέξαι* (listen, receive into the ears). In this sense the Septuagint often use the verb *ἐνωτίζεσθαι* (to give ear); concerning which, in Jerem. xii, 15, Origen notes almost the same as here, with these words: "What 'to give ear' means, let us understand from the word itself, 'receive into the ears'," *hom. 12 in Jerem.* And in the same way Hesychius: *ἐνωτίζου*, receive in the ears. Ibid., line 15, *ἀκουτίσθητι, ἀντὶ τοῦ ... ἀκοῦσαι ποιεῖς* (be made to hear, instead of... you cause to hear). These words are certainly corrupt; for nowhere among the LXX interpreters does that word *ἀκουτίσθητε* exist, nor is this verb used at all in the passive form; nor even if it were used, would the imperative *ἀκουτίσθητι* in any way mean "you cause to hear": wherefore I think it should be read: *ἀκούτισον, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἀκοῦσαι ποίει* (cause to hear, instead of, cause to hear). For this verb occurs in that sense not rarely among the LXX, for example in Cantic. ii, 14: *Ἀκούτισόν με τὴν φωνήν σου* (Cause me to hear your voice). And again, ch. viii, 13: *Ἀκουτισόν με* (Cause me to hear), that is, make me hear, which is *ἀκοῦσαι ποίει με*. Ibid. D, line 1, *ἰσομοιᾳ τῇ, ἐπιουσίῳ* (equality to the, supersubstantial). Read: *ἰσομοίᾳ δὲ τῇ, ἐπιούσιον, προσηγορίαν* (but to the equality, supersubstantial, nomenclature). As above, the expression "the supersubstantial". Col. 512 A, line 2, *προηγουμένην τὴν τῶν ἀσωμάτων* (the primary [nature] of incorporeal things). Thus Timaeus Locrus says concerning the soul of the world: "which God did not arrange after corporeal substance... (for he made the more honorable prior in reality and in time, but the older...)" etc.; with which Plato agrees in the *Timaeus*: "God established the soul to be prior and older than the body in generation and virtue." And in *De leg. lib. x*: "The soul of the body would be older... if also the soul is [older] than the body." Further, they posit that the *ἰδέα*, or the paradigmatic principle of things created, is an incorporeal essence, which Pythagoras and Aristotle also affirmed concerning all first causes, as Plutarch reports: "Pythagoras and Aristotle [say] that the first causes [are] incorporeal." *Plut. De placit. philos.*, 1, 10, 11. Ibid., line 8, *ἐπεισιόντος* (of that which is entering). Ms. incorrectly: *ἐπισείοντος* (of that which is shaking). Ibid., line 9, *ἐὰν πλεῖον* (if more). Thus Timaeus Locrus: "food... if there be more than what is flowing out, it is called growth; if less, decay." Ibid., line 13, *προηγουμένην δὲ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων* (but [they thought] the primary nature of bodies). In this opinion were the greatest part of the philosophers, especially the Stoics, who said that *πάντα τὰ αἴτια* (all causes) were *σωματικά* (corporeal) (ap. Plutarch, *De Placitis*, I, 11) and that *σώματα εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς* (bodies are the principles), ap. Laert. vii, 134, which reading Lipsius seems to move correctly to delete in *Phys. Stoic.*, II, 5. Compare Origen, *Contra Cels.* p. 686. Ibid., line 15, *πρώτη ... ὕλη* (first ... matter). Here Origen records the common opinion of the primary philosophers. For thus the prince of the Stoics, Zeno (ap. Stob. *Ec. phys.* c. 14), says, "that substance is the first matter of all things that are." So also Ocellus Pythagoricus (*De universo* c. 2), "first matter is the receptacle; and..."
mother, nurse, and generator of the third substances." Plato also concurs in the *Timaeus*. Aristotle agrees with these (*Phys. ausc.* 1, 10): "There must be some first subject, that from which... for I call matter the first subject of everything." See Plutarch, *De placit. philos.* 1, 4, and Alcinous, *De doctr. Platonis*, cap. 8, and Laertius on Zeno, VII, 150.
Ibid., *ἐξ ἧς*. For these words, *ἑξῆς* is wrongly written three times in the codex.
Ibid. B, lin. 1, *ἢ... ᾗ*. The passage itself shows that it must be read this way, just as it is read in the following lines: the copyist, being less attentive, wrote *ἡ τῶν* in both places, as does the Oxford edition.
B Ibid., lin. 7, *ἄποιος*. Origen speaks in the same manner in *Contra Cels.* p. 474: "Let him attend to what is said by the Greeks concerning matter, which is *ἄποιος* (without quality) by its own definition, [even though] quality is disputed..." And p. 547: "Matter is the same, underlying all bodies, by its own definition *ἄποιος* (without quality) and without form..." See also *Comm. in Joan.* tom. xiii, num. 21. Thus Timaeus says: "He called matter formless by itself, and without shape, but receiving every form." And similarly Ocellus. Consult also Plutarch, *De anim. procreat. e Timaeo* pp. 1014, 1023, and *De placitis philos.* 1, 9; Laelius IV, 69, 76, and VII, 154; Stobaeus *Ec. phys.* 14; Origen, *Philos. de Platone*, cap. 19, ed. Wolf, and Alcinous, *De doctr. Platon.*, cap. 8.
Ibid., lin. 9, *ἔγκειται*. It should undoubtedly be read *ὑπόκειται*; for the philosophers always use this word in this matter; and Origen himself does so as well, *Contra Cels.* pp. 547, 548.
Ibid., lin. 15, *τὴν δέ*. Read *αὐτὴν δέ*. Twin to these are Origen's words in *Comm. in Gen.*: "Matter has become receptive of every quality which God wills." And *Contra Cels.* p. 548: "That the underlying matter is receptive of qualities, of which the Creator wills, we all maintain." Thus Laertius says of the Stoics: "To them there seem to be two principles of all things, the active and the passive; the passive to be the *ἄποιος* (qualityless) substance, matter; but the active the reason in it, which is God." *Lib.* VII, segm. 154.
C Ibid., C, lin. 2, *συνὼν αὐτῇ τόνος*. That *αερώδης* (airy) tension, which, as the Stoics thought, pervading qualityless matter, elicits qualities and induces the form of bodies into its individual parts; as Plutarch teaches us, discussing this matter in *De repugn. Stoic.*, p. 1054: "Everywhere they declare that matter, being idle of itself and motionless, underlies qualities, and that the qualities are spirits (*πνεύματα*); which they also call airy tensions, by whose presence in parts of matter, they make them individually qualified and shaped." In these words of Plutarch, which are clearly corrupt, I think one should read, instead of *πνεύματα; οὓς δὲ*... ΣΩΜΑΤΑ; ΕΞΕΙΣ δὲ... For the Stoics denied that the immaterial (*τὸ ἀσώματον*) is qualities (as we learn from Galen's little book, *That qualities are immaterial*, written against them), and therefore affirmed that they were not spirits, or airy tensions, but bodies; which Plutarch himself teaches in the parallel passage, *De commun. not. advers. Stoicos*, p. 1085: "They say that substance and matter subsist by qualities, but they make the qualities... BODIES." Where he discusses this opinion of theirs at greater length: do not doubt, therefore, on the authority of the author himself, to read here, "but they make the qualities BODIES." That one must read *ΕΞΕΙΣ* (states/habits) instead of *οὓς* is shown by the sequence of the whole passage; for in the preceding parts Plutarch had noted concerning Chrysippus *On States (περὶ ἕξεων)*, since he means nothing else by *ἕξις* than the airy [substance] which brings about the qualities and forms of all bodies, saying that states are nothing else but airs. "For by these bodies are held together, and the air which holds them together is the cause of each being qualified by the states...": repeating, therefore, this same opinion now, as common to the Stoics, he says, "but [they declare] that states and airy tensions make each thing qualified and shaped," and that...
D Ibid., lin. 6, *πᾶσαν οὐσίαν πάσῃ συγχεῖσθαι*. So Zeno says in Stobaeus (*Ec. phys.* c. 14), "substance to be first matter... but that parts of this are divided and mixed together." So also *ibid.* says Chrysippus, "first matter is capable of division and mixture according to the parts." But Cicero has summarized this opinion of the philosophers, about which Origen argues here at greater length, in these few words: "They think that there is a certain matter underlying all things without any image, and lacking all quality, from which all things are expressed and fashioned; which can receive all forms, and be changed in all ways, and from every part." *Acad.* 1, 8.
Col. 513 A, lin. 3, *πρὸς ἕκαστον*. I think *πρός* should be deleted, so that it is, "it follows... each... to be able..."
Ibid., lin. 5, *ἔστι... τις... τροφὴ δηλητήριος*. Origen says almost the same in *in Joan.* tom. i, num. 53: "There is also a certain poisonous food, which we learn from the Fourth Book of Kings, some saying to Elisha, 'Death is in the pot,' etc."
Ibid., lin. 14, *δή*. Read *δέ*. Ibid. B, lin. 2, *ζήσεται*. MS *ζήσηται*.
Ibid., lin. 6, *ἐπερειδομένοις, ὡς*. It is read in the LXX, *"ἐπερειδομένοις ἐπ' αὐτὴν ὡς..."*
Ibid., lin. 12, *καὶ συνεστίων*. That *καί* should, I think, be deleted.
Ibid. C, lin. 1, *ἄρτου τοῦ*. That *τοῦ* disturbs the sentence, and seems to be repeated from the preceding syllable; therefore, with it omitted, read *ἄρτου ἱστορουμένου*.
Ibid., lin. 5, *αὐτοῦ*. Read *ἄρτου*. For he does not mean *τοῦτον αὐτόν*, this same one, which the Hebrews once ate, but such bread: *τούτου ἄρτου, ὁ σωματικοῦ* (of this bread, the bodily).
Ibid., lin. 5, *λειτουργικοίς*. In the codex it is wrongly written *αὐτουργικοίς*, which we have decided should be corrected from Heb. 1, 14.
Ibid., lin. 12, *γυμνῶς τροπικῶς*. They appear [spoken] bare, and as if removed from a garment, in a tropical sense; for the bodily in the Scriptures is "the clothing of the spiritual," as the *Philocalia* says (p. 11). But in the same way that here, "the bare spiritual things [are] compared to those according to history" (*ibid.* p. 15). Origen wants these words to be merely allegorical, to be understood, as he says elsewhere, "not literally, but tropically." Bentleius reads "not bare, but tropically." RUES.
Ibid. D, lin. 1, *εἰς ὠφέλειαν αὐτῶν*. He says this in *Hom. 23 in Lucam*, that angels are instructed by human voices.
Col. 516, A, lin. 6, *αὐτὸς μεταδώσων*. So *Hom. 14 in Ezech.*: "My Savior alone eats the bread, with no one being able to eat with him: but there is a certain place, in which eating he will draw me with him to eat; for behold, he says, I stand at the door, and knock; if anyone appears to me, I will enter to him, and will sup with him, and he with me: from which it appears that others can also sup with him."
Ibid., lin. 10, *δράκοντος*. That is, "of the adversary," as he says later, namely the devil, allegorically. So Theophilus of Alexandria in *Ep. pasch.* 2: "The food of the impious is the devil himself, detestable, as the prophecy resounds: 'Thou didst give him as food to the people, the Ethiopians.'" Thus also you may see Eusebius discussing this in *Comm. in psalm.* p. 441.
Ibid., lin. 11, *νοητοῦ Αιθίοπος*. So "the intellectual Babylonians" in *Hom. 1 in Jer.*, and "the intellectual Nebuchadnezzar" in *Hom. 18*. Likewise lib. iv, cap. [2]: *On Principles*: "If, therefore, the prophecies concerning Judea, and Jerusalem, and Israel... are not what we are interpreting carnally, they suggest such mysteries, it would follow that also the prophecies concerning Ae-
Agypt and the Egyptians, and Babylon and the Babylonians, and Tyre and the Tyrians..., are not prophesying only about these bodily things, but also about the intelligible ones; for if there are intelligible Israelites, it follows that there are also intelligible Egyptians and Babylonians, etc.
Ibid., B, line 5, "You have given him." There is nothing to which "him" (*auton*) refers. Supply, therefore, the passage according to the LXX: "of water. You crushed the head of the dragon; you gave him..." Thus indeed does Origen himself have it in *Commentary on Matthew*, tom. XVI, no. 20.
Ibid., line 7, "of the adversary." Namely, of the dragon, or the devil. But thus he says in *Homily 6 on Ezekiel*: "It is written in Job concerning the dragon: 'His strength is in his belly'..." I know that, when I was explaining the present passage, I said that the dragon is the contrary power; for this dragon is the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, etc.
Ibid., line 11, "to be fed by all." Origen says almost the same thing in *Homily 7 on Leviticus*: "After the flesh of Christ, the food of the world is Peter, and Paul, and all the apostles; in the third place their disciples; and thus each one, according to the quantity of his merits or the purity of his senses, becomes food for his neighbor."
Ibid., C, line 2, "in whom all." Namely, "there existed." For so it is read in Acts 5:12, "in whom there existed all..."
Ibid., D, line 2, "indeed" (*dē*). Read "but" (*de*).
Col. 517 A, line 2, "the" (*ton*). Read "the" (*to*), "supersubstantial" (*epiousion*). Origen had said above "the supersubstantial" (*ton epiousion*), or regarding the word *epiousios*, that it was formed from *ousia* (substance); but someone, he says, might counter here that this word *epiousios* could also be formed from *epienai* (to come). And thus the scholia on the Lord's Prayer [are] subjoined to these: "The word *epiousion* is onomatopoetically derived from *epienai* and *hyperexthai*, so that it may be: 'give us already, not [the bread] proper to the present age, but the one to be rendered to the saints in the future.'"
Ibid., line 9, "the one concerning the." I think it is better [to read] "the one concerning the, 'today'; but what, I ask, is that 'the one concerning the today'..., lying before us here? For I see nothing in Matthew besides the word 'today' itself. Therefore to me the 'the one concerning the today' would seem to be read as 'this today,' or even 'the today,' just as the custom follows [the word] 'the' [in] 'daily'."
Ibid., line 10, "lying before us" (*prokeimenon*), "or the." Read "placed toward" (*proskeimenon*), and "the one placed toward," apposed, added, "placed by way of addition." Hesychius.
Ibid., line 12, "in many places of the Scriptures." Origen repeats these things in almost the same words in *Commentary on John*, tom. XXXI, num. 19: "In many places 'today' in Scripture extends even to the whole present age, as in, 'It was spoken... until today'; and, 'This father... until this day'; and, 'Today, if you hear his voice... and, do not harden your hearts... in the day of today'."
Ibid., B, line 6, "today the whole." Read "the today, the whole."
Ibid., line 7, "the yesterday." Read "the yesterday" (*to chthēs*). But in that which Origen says a little later, namely, that "the yesterday," or "the day of yesterday," is the famous millennium, he clearly attacks the followers of Papias, who dreamed of a certain thousand-year kingdom of the saints on earth after the resurrection.
Ibid., line 9, "to say." Understand from the preceding "the Scriptures," or instead of "to say" you ought to read "to be said."
Ibid., C, line 2, "of one day." So *Commentary on Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 31: "See if we are able to call the whole present age a certain day," etc.
Ibid., "in the interval... to say." There is without doubt to be read: "to have the reasoned account of an interval." So it must be read. Bentley had already warned of this. RUEUS.
Ibid., D, line 1, "who is wise." In almost the same way Origen discusses this matter in *Commentary on Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 31: "Who then is sufficient to raise the six days, and the seventh of the resurrection, unto such days, and after the sabbaths the new moons," etc.
Col. 520 A, line 4, "on the tenth." Read "the tenth is the day of atonement," just as what precedes, "the new moon is the day of trumpets." Contra Bentley here, [who] corrects it to "on the tenth," and above [who] reads "the new moon is the day of trumpets." RUEUS.
Ibid., line 11, "of seven years." "Of weeks" is plainly missing, so that it may be "of seven weeks of years": for not seven years, but seven years seven times, constitute the Jubilee. Lev. XXV, 8. Nothing is missing here. There was one festival of seven years, another the Jubilee. The Jubilee was greater than the seven-year festival. The London editor has confused both festivals, but Origen distinguished them well. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 13, "to be something." I judge "to be" (*eivai*) should be deleted; for in that place they are plainly inept, and seem to have been fabricated by a drowsy scribe from the tail of the preceding word. It seems otherwise to me. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 14, "is of the." You see that some word is missing here; therefore read, "is, except the." However, he wishes [to refer to] Christ the Son of God. But those things which Origen says here concerning the Jubilee are consonant with those in *Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 31: "Who is able to ascend to the number of B the days of the abyss in the fifty-year period (by 'of the abyss' I mean because of the depth of the dogmas), so that one may ascend and see the fiftieth year, and the things legislated in it being fulfilled," etc. Bentley had previously read, "is, except the." RUEUS.
Ibid., B, line 13, "the surpassing multitude." In the edition. Eph. IV, 7, it is read, "the surpassing wealth." But the Alexandrian codex and others have "the surpassing wealth," and so perhaps Origen; since Eusebius, who follows him almost throughout, in Coloss. I, 27, twice reads "the wealth" (*Eccl. Theol.*, p. 99, 101), just as others also do: however, since Origen a little later repeats, "the wealth of his grace," I am led to believe that he read here with the vulgate readings "the surpassing wealth," especially since I see him reading thus in *Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 51, or *De Principiis* II, 5, just as Eusebius also reads in *against Marcellus*, p. 34. Bentley reads "wealth." RUEUS.
Ibid., C, line 3, "of more ages, as if, a year." At the same time, when Origen here attempts to reconcile the words of the Apostle cited above with one another in *Commentary on Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 34: "I think that... upon the consummation of more ages. Whether completing a certain year, or whatever it may be, for the putting away of sin was our Jesus manifested, so that after the consummation of the ages—[the] days as of a year—another beginning might succeed and God might show in the ages to come the surpassing wealth of his goodness," etc.
Ibid., line 8, "most sinful." Thus "a sinner greater than Cain," *homily 16 on Jeremiah*.
Ibid., line 12, "being disposed of" (*oikonomēsomēnou*). That is, through a certain economy [God] attains the forgiveness of sins. But Origen inculcates this opinion of his concerning the remission of even the most serious sins in the coming ages everywhere; e.g., *Commentary on John*, tom. XIX, num. 3: "I know some [who are] kept by their own sin not only in this age, but also in the one to come, as those concerning whom the Word says, 'If anyone blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he has no forgiveness neither in this age, nor in the one to come'; not, however, that [it is] not in the age to come, nor even in the ages that are coming." The same in *Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 51: "Perhaps, to speak more boldly, the Lord will not cast away [one] unto the ages; for it is too much even to be cast away by the Lord for one age; but perhaps he will be cast away even unto a second age, because such a sin is not forgiven, neither in the present age, nor in the age to come." And *against Celsus*, p. 589: "The Word... says that those who according to their desert need the economy of punishment through fire, are in these [ages] in accordance with some end," etc. But Athanasius attacks this opinion of Origen with these words: "...the wretched Origen is accused, proclaiming the end of punishment, as if the forgiveness of every sin were to happen both to men and to demons by..."
God." *Commentary on Matthew*, ap. Montfauc., *Collect. nov. Patr.*, vol. II, p. 38. Cf. Huet, *Origeniana*, lib. II, quest. 11.
Col. 522 A, line 4, ἑβδοματικοὺς ἑπτά (sevenfold-weekly). Namely ἑνιαυτούς (years), which seems to be omitted by the scribe; I therefore read ἑβδοματικοὺς ἑπτὰ ἐνιαυτούς. He desires, moreover, a Jubilee of ages. — Bentley, for ἑβδοματικούς, reads ἑβδομαδικούς. Ruæus. Ibid., line 10, ἤδη σαφούς... τοῦ καθ' ἡμέραν. Namely, that since "today" (as he showed in the aforementioned) denotes the present age, "daily" consequently designates all the future ages. Ibid., line 11, περὶ τῆς. Read περὶ τοῦ, σήμερον, as "concerning that which is today" follows. So indeed a little later: "in order that both 'today' and 'daily' may be understood." Ibid., line 16, αὐτοῦ. The scribe clearly wrote this while dozing instead of ἡμῶν. Indeed, what follows, εἰ καὶ τελευταῖον... up to the end of the section, he corrupted and mutilated in such a way that we cannot sufficiently grasp what Origen truly wrote, or what he intended in these parts. Having therefore set aside our conjectures here, we leave the whole passage to be elucidated and emended according to your own ingenuity. We have presented the Oxford version here, so that you may also correct it; which we neither approve of, nor do we think you will be overly pleased with it. Ibid. B, line 2, ἀφήκαμεν. So it is read above, no. 18. But in the editions of Matthew vi, 12, it is more correctly read ἀφίεμεν. Ibid., line 4, ἀφήκαμεν. The editions, Luke xi, 4, have ἀφίεμεν, and Origen himself is the same above, no. 18. Ibid., line 5, ὀφειλημάτων. The scribe wrote λειμμάτων. Ibid., line 11, τοῖσδε. Read τοιοῖσδέ τισι... Ibid., line 15, δή. Read δέ. Ibid. C, line 3, συναναγεγεννημένους. The codex is wrong with συναναγεννημένους. Col. 524 A, line 6, δή. Read δέ. Ibid., line 15, προσεύξηται. Read προσεύξονται. The Septuagint editions read thus, and so Origen repeats afterwards. The negligent scribe here wrote προσεύξηται, καὶ εἰ ἐὰν εἰς instead of ἐὰν δέ εἰς... in what follows. Ibid. B, line 6, ἔστι τις. Here too δέ seems to have been omitted, for you would read it more aptly as ἔστι δέ τις. Ibid. C, line 11, ὀφειλὴ βαρυτάτη. Similar to these, Origen says in Homily 11 on Jeremiah: "I, a presbyter, am required to give more than a deacon, the deacon more than a layman; but he who has been entrusted with the rule of us all [the bishop] is required to give even more." And Homily 5 on Ezekiel: "He who presides over the Church and errs has a greater punishment. Does not a faithful catechumen deserve mercy by comparison? Is not a layman more worthy of pardon if compared to a deacon? And again, does a deacon merit more pardon by comparison to a presbyter?" etc. Ibid., line 15, ἀποδιδῶτο. Read ἀποδιδῶται, or ἀποδιδοῖτο. Ibid. D, line 4, τοῦ ἐντυγχάνοντος. Read τῷ ἐντυγχάνοντι. Bentley proposes another emendation of this passage. Ruæus.
Col. 525, line 10, ὥστε μηδὲν ὀφείλειν. In the same manner Origen discourses in Homily 14 on Jeremiah: "He who renders debts to all, to whom tribute is due, the tribute; to whom custom, the custom; to whom fear, the fear; to whom honor, the honor—and rendering to all their proper duties, so as to owe nothing to anyone, having honored parents as parents, brothers as brothers, sons as sons, bishops as bishops, presbyters as presbyters, deacons as deacons, the faithful as the faithful, catechumens as catechumens—if he renders all duties, he has owed nothing," etc. Ibid., line 15, ἀποδιδομένοις. Read ἀποδιδομένων. — I had already warned that this should be read this way. Ruæus.
Col. 528 B, line 1, ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ τυπούμεναι. Origen says almost the same in Homily 16 on Jeremiah: "The sins that we commit are written into us by the act of sinning... having made it [the sin], he has a type of it, and it is as though it were written: 'The type of the sin that was sinned in my soul.'" And Homily 15: "Each of us is a debtor to sins, and is a debtor having a handwriting," etc. Ibid., line 5, προαχθησομένων. Read προαχθησόμενον, i.e., the handwriting from which we will be judged. Bentley had already warned that it should be read as προαχθησόμενον. Ruæus. Ibid., line 7, φαῦλον. Origen also reads this way in *Jerem.*, homily 19, and in *Matth.*, tom. XII, no. 50, and tom. XIII, no. 30; but the editions in II Cor. v, 10, have κακόν. Ibid., line 9, λέγεται. The manuscript has λέγηται. Ibid., line 10. In the codex, it is written incorrectly as αἰσχυνόμενος, and soon, ἕξει... ἀποδώσει, with no sense. We therefore do not doubt that the scribe's error should be corrected from the editions by reading εἰς ἐγγύην αἰσχυνόμενος... εἰ γὰρ οὐχ ἕξῃς πόθεν ἀποδώσεις. But for ἀποδώσῃς, the editions have ἀποτίσῃς. Ibid. D, line 2, ἀληθοῦς. In the codex, it is written incorrectly as ἀληθοῦς. Write ἀληθείας. I had already warned that this should be read this way. Ruæus.
Col. 528 A, line 2, ἐνειλήσας. That is, punished, he has been involved, he has been punished. Hesychius. But instances for this meaning do not occur to us. It seems to me, therefore, that this was written carelessly by the scribe instead of ἀπειλήσας, that is, having scolded with anger, acting in anger and threateningly, which fits the passage aptly; for *apeile* is an angry scolding, or a threat of evil, as the author of the *Etymologicum Magnum* teaches us. Instead of ἐνειλήσας, Bentley reads ἀνηλεῶς. Ruæus. Ibid., line 4, καὶ ὀκνηρέ. These words do not exist in the cited passage, Matthew XVIII, 32; but are transferred here by Origen from a similar passage (as is habitual), Matthew XXV, 26: where, however, they could have more correctly been omitted; since in this passage, the cruelty of the servants is being reprimanded by the Lord, not—as in the other passage—also their sloth. Ibid., line 9, ὑμῶν. Origen here omits τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, which follow after ὑμῶν in the editions, which Mill did not notice. It is truly strange, moreover, how the distinguished man dissents from himself regarding these words, who in his notes thinks they should be retained by the authority of the Greek codices, but rejects them on the authority of the prologue to the Ethiopic version. Ibid., line 12, ἑπτάκις... ἑπτάκις. In the codex, it is written incorrectly ἑπτὰ ἑπτά. Ibid. B, line 3, ἐγγενέσθαι. Scil. healing. I think, therefore, it should be read ἐγγενέσθαι αὐτὴν τῷ. — We, however, have punctuated this passage in such a way that there is no need for such an emendation. Ruæus. Ibid., line 7, ἡμῶν. Perhaps ἡμῖν, for he refers to the words of Luke... τῷ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν. — ἡμῶν must be retained. For it concerns us as debtors and [those] not rendering debts. Ruæus. Ibid., line 11, μόνον λέγων. There is no sufficiently sound meaning in these; for Matthew does not say this only, nor could he say that Christ established for debtors that they "must not..." perhaps: "to those who owe only, and do not render," saying..., as above. But we are in need of the aid of a better codex here. The passage will be sound, provided you punctuate just as in our text, where, however, through the printer's carelessness, χῶρον is incorrectly read instead of χώραν. Ruæus. Ibid., line 14. After ἐξουσίαν, we must add ἔχομεν. The scribe omitted this, which we, as the sentence demands, have added, just as the Oxford edition had also added it; but so also a little later, τῷ μόνῳ ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντι ἀφιέναι Θεῷ. We had already warned that ἔχομεν should be added. Ruæus. Ibid. C, line 3, ὡς οἱ ἀπόστολοι. He said almost the same above, no. 14, "if any Paul or Peter were found," etc. Confer *Comm. in Matth.*, tom. XII, nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Ibid., line 4, ἀφίετε. Read ἀφῆτε, just as is the custom
A 85 from the same, as usually happens, absorbed by the preceding syllable.
Col. 529 A, line 2, ἀκουσίων. From the Mosaic law it seems to be established that there was no "involuntary" sin which could not be expiated by some sacrifice; and in this the Hebrew doctors almost all agree. Yet there is one among them, not undistinguished, R. Levi of Barcelona, who in the book *Chinuch*, explaining the precepts of the Law from the legal and ritual books of the Jews, excludes three sins which, even if committed inadvertently, were not expiated by sacrifice—namely, blasphemy, neglect of circumcision, and the failure to observe the Passover properly; and perhaps Origen learned something of this sort from his Hebrew teacher, whom he mentions often in book 1 of *De principiis*, in his *Comm. in Psalm.*, p. 39, and in *Matth.* tom. 11, no. 9, as well as in the Hexapla. However, Origen perhaps means this: that there were certain "involuntary" faults regarding which the power of the priest, by order of the law, did not extend, inasmuch as there was no victim prescribed by law for their expiation—such, namely, as were inadvertently spoken and thought, and rashly omitted, which those who repented were forgiven without a sacrifice. See Outram, *De sacrificiis*, pp. 112, 126. — The London editor punctuated his text thus: *καὶ οὐδήπου τὴν περί τινων ἐξουσίαν ὁ ἱερεὺς ἀκουσίων, ἢ πλημμελημάτων ἀναφοράν, ἔχων ἤδη· καὶ περὶ μοιχείας*, etc. But if he had punctuated it as we have, he would have refrained from this useless note, which is contrary to Origen's mind. RUAEUS. — Ibid., line 4, ἤδη. Read καί. Thus in no. 29: *ἤδη συμπεπληρωκώς*. The ἤδη must be retained by all means, as is clear from the punctuation of our text. RUAEUS. — Ibid., line 5, προσφέρει. Read οὐ προσφέρει, for the negative particle is clearly missing. — One should wrongly read οὐ προσφέρει, since the negative particle has already preceded. RUAEUS. — Ibid., line 6, περὶ ἁμαρτίας. Supply *θυσίαν*. Thus in Psalm. xxxix, 7, *ὁλοκαύτωμα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ᾔτησας*. — Ibid., line 15, καὶ τό. Read καίτοι, or καὶ τοῖς. Bentley also reads καὶ τοῖς. And Lord Fleury, *καὶ τὸ ἀπογινώσκειν*. RUAEUS. — Ibid. B, line 4, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως. It seems that *νῦν* is missing, or *ἀλλά*, so that it might be read *νῦν δ' οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως*, or *ἀλλ' οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως*. B Ibid., line 10, *τῆς πρὸς θάνατον ἁμαρτίας*. He seems to designate by this those graver faults mentioned before—idolatry, adultery, etc.—which by the Mosaic law were "death-bearing" and not to be expiated by any sacrifice. For Origen himself, in *Comm. in Matth.*, tom. XIII, no. 30, enumerating great sins of this kind, calls them "those toward death," or, as the Law named them in Numbers, "death-bearing." But for those guilty of such sins in Origen's time, pardon was very rarely granted, as he himself says in *Hom. 15 in Levit.*: In more serious crimes, a place for repentance is granted only once. He rebukes here, therefore, those priests who, acting more arrogantly than they should, or not being sufficiently acquainted with the rule of discipline, were too easy in remitting these more serious sins, *φαντασία τῆς τοῦ λόγου χρηστότητος καὶ πρὸς τοὺς τὰ μέγιστα ἡμαρτηκότας τὸ συγγνωμικὸν διδόντες*, as he says in the place cited above, in *Matth.* tom. XIII, no. 30. This relaxation of discipline, however, which displeased Origen, gave the occasion to Tertullian, the defender of stricter discipline, to flee into the camps of Montanus; as is apparent from his book *De pudicitia*, where he reproaches the priests with almost the same things that Origen does here: "I hear," he says, "that an edict has been proposed, and indeed a peremptory one; the Pontifex Maximus... edicts: I forgive the sins of adultery and fornication to those who have performed penance," etc. Col. 532 B, line 1, *Θεὸς οὐκ*. Read *Θεός, ὃς οὐκ*, as it stands in the editions. 1 Cor. x, 13. The article, however, is [missing]. — Ibid., line 4, *δύνασθαι*. In the editions *δύνασθαι ὑμᾶς* is read. But the Alex. codex and others, like Origen here, omit *ὑμᾶς*. See Mill. — Ibid., *ἡ πάλη*. *ἡμῖν* seems to be missing; and so in the editions, Eph. vi, 12, *ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη*. And so Origen a little later, *ἡμῖν τὰ ἀγωνίσματα*. — Ibid., line 5, *—*. Read *καί*. — Ibid., *ψυχὴν πάσης σαρκός*. That is, *αἷμα*; for *ψυχὴ πάσης σαρκὸς αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐστι*, Levit. xvii, 11. It is therefore a "transferring" of soul for blood, where it has its seat, and of the heart for the soul, which is the fountain of blood and soul simultaneously. Origen therefore wishes there to be a struggle for us with the soul, which is the *ἡγεμονικόν* of the animate body, and is called the heart, whence arise the evil affections which he calls human temptations, with which the spirit struggles. — Ibid., line 8, *τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν, ὃ καλεῖται καρδία*. Thus in *Comment. in Joan.*, tom. II, no. 29, *ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν*. But Origen borrowed this from the Stoics: for they, as Laertius says in Zeno, "say the *ἡγεμονικόν* is the sovereign part of the soul... which is in the heart." Book VII, segment 159. See the notes of Menagius. — Ibid., line 13, *καταπεπατηκασιν*. Ms. *καταπεπατηκόσιν*, as the Oxford edition has. C — Ibid., line 13, *σκότους τούτου*. Thus also Origen reads these words of the Apostle in *Matth.*, tom. XII, no. 13, and tom. XVII, no. 2, and *contra Cels.*, p. 768, with *τοῦ αἰῶνος* omitted, which exist in the editions of Eph. vi, 12. But these four passages of Origen escaped Mill, who certainly needed their testimony before he so confidently rejected those words, *τοῦ αἰῶνος*, in his *Prolegom.* sect. 478, as if they were born from an interpretation. In Book VIII *contra Celsum*, in our edition, *τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου* is read, as the manuscript codices bear. RUAEUS. — Ibid. C, line 4, *Ἰουδίο, οὐ*. In the codex there is a strange blunder here, *Ἰουδαία, εἰ οὐ*, clearly for *Ἰουδίθ, οὐ*; and we have not hesitated to correct it thus; just as the Oxford edition exhibited it without reminding the reader. — Ibid., line 12, *ἡμᾶς ἐκδικεῖ*. In the editions of the Seventy it is read... *ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἐξεδίκησεν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς νουθέτησιν μαστιγοῖ*. You see, however, that Origen omits the negative particle *οὐκ* here, which Badvell and Grotius think should be omitted in the earlier part of the sentence; nevertheless, all the Greek exemplars dissent (as Badvell himself admits): and to me, indeed, this reading of Origen seems sufficiently appropriate, *οὐ γὰρ καθὼς ἐκείνους ἐπύρωσε, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδικεῖ...*; for God does not now deal with us more harshly than he dealt with our forefathers of old, testing them alone and destining us for destruction, but he chastises all sons equally—us as well as them—only for the sake of admonition and amendment. But the Oxford editor, rejecting the words of the codex according to his custom, inserted here those of the Seventy cited above. D Ibid. D, line 8, *περισσοτέρως .... ὑπερβαλλόντως*. The words seem to be inverted by the scribe's carelessness; and they are to be read in the order in which they appear more aptly arranged in the editions of 2 Cor. xi, 23: *ἐν πληγαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως, ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως*. And indeed Origen himself recites it thus in *hom. 44 in Jer.* But in *Comm. in Rom.*, p. 426, it is written thus: *ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσευόντως, ἐν πληγαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως*, which we also judge must be attributed to the carelessness of the librarian. Col. 533 B, line 13, *σκόλοπος τοῦ*. I think it should be read *σκόλοπος ἀγγέλου τοῦ Σατανᾶ*. For so the editions of 2 Cor. xii, 7 [have it], and Origen himself in *hom. 12 in Jer.* Ibid. C, line 1, *κακῶν*. It should clearly be read conversely, *καλῶν*, as is clear from the preceding *κρείττονα*.
κρείττονα*.
B Ibid., line 2, *ὠρέχθησαν*. Read *ὠρέχθητε*, or… [rest of line obscured by scan note].
B Ibid., line 4, *ἀναπλάττοντες ἕτερον*. He means the Marcionites, whom he depicts in almost the same way in his book *Contra Cels.*, p. 754, with these words: "Those who walk another path, and while denying this [creator], have given themselves over to a novel fiction, and to the name of 'God' alone, as though he were greater than the creator," etc. Compare, however, Just. Mart. *Apol. 1*, sect. 35, 75; Iren. 1, 29; Epiphan. *hær. XLII*; Theod. *Hær. Fab. 1*, 24, and Tertull. *advers. Marcion.* Ibid., line 6, *ή*. Read *καὶ Πατέρα*, and in the same line, *καὶ Χριστοῦ*. Ibid., line 8, *ὃν δέ*. Read *οὓς δέ*, i.e., Father and Son.
Col. 557 A, line 9, *μὴ εἰσελθεῖν*. The sentence is clearly incomplete: read therefore, "pray not to enter"; for he himself intends the very words of Christ in Luke xxii, 40, and thus he cites them a little later.
Ibid. C, line 9, *ταῦτα πάντα προσεκτέον*. "One must observe all these things..." — *Ed. Oxon.* But the word *προσεκτέον* in this sense demands a dative of the thing, i.e., *τούτοις πᾶσι προσεκτέον*... And indeed, that word taken in that way does not suit this place. To me, therefore, instead of *προσεκτέον* it seems that *ΠΡΟΣΑΚΤΕΟΝ* should be read, i.e., "they are to be brought as charges," for Origen uses this verb often in this way. Thus above, no. 16: "But if anyone should bring against us the..." — "let them worship..." See *Comm. in Gen.*: "if we bring against them... that the world..." And *Contra Cels.* p. 504: "Which Celsus brings against us..." And in *Joan. tom. II*, num. 6: "He must be brought [read *αὐτῷ*] as being inferior to the angels... that Jesus had come to be," and *Philoc. 24*: "Let them untie the knotty questions brought against them by us." So also Clem. Alex. *Str. VII*, p. 866: "They bring this very thing against us," i.e., they object this very thing to us. Thus also Euseb. *Eccl. theol.*, p. 193: "The matters proposed against them must be brought."
Ibid., *τοῖς διακόπτουσι τὴν θεότητα*. Thus concerning the Marcionites, who imagined two gods for themselves, one the just God of the law, the other the good God of the Gospel. Origen reproaches them for this with almost these same words everywhere; e.g., *hom. 1 in Jer.*: "There follow those who divide the divinity, the one [God] older than the advent of the Savior... from the divinity promised by Jesus Christ." And in *Titum ap. Pamph. Apol.*: "As far as in them lies, they cut and tear the nature of the deity, saying one is the God of the Law, and the other the God of the Gospels." And *Comm. in Joan. tom. 1*, num. 14: "The heterodox assign both Testaments to two gods." Compare *lib. II, cap. 4, 5, De Principiis*, and *Philoc. pp. 6, 7, 21, 60, 58, 101, 102*. In the same way, Irenaeus III, 42: "Marcion," he says, "dividing God into two, calling one indeed good and the other judicial, from both destroys God," etc.
Ibid., line 12, *εἰ ὁ ἀγαθὸς Θεός*. With these, compare Origen’s *Comm. in Exod.*, pp. 17, 18, 22, 25.
Ibid. D, line 12, *ταράξει*. Namely, since they had read that it was written by the Apostle, that good one, the God of the new testament whom they had fashioned for themselves, [he] likewise handed men over to a reprobate mind to commit those shameful acts, and that other one, the God of the old testament, whom for that reason they deemed to be rejected.
Ibid., *ἀναπλάσαντες*. Read *ἀναπλάσαντας*, for it refers clearly to *ἐκείνους*. Place therefore after… [rest obscured by folio edge].
Col. 540 A, line 2, *ὡς οὐκ ἀγαθῷ*. So almost Origen, *hom. 1 in Jer.*: "Those from the heresies... brought [them] against us, saying: 'Do you see God the [God] of the Law, how he is wild and inhuman...'". And *hom. 12*: "The heretics seize upon these same [scriptural] phrases, saying: 'Do you see the creator, what he is like, and the God of the prophets, who says: "I will not spare..." how can this one be good?'" Compare *Philoc. pp. 6, 7*, and *Comm. in Matth. tom. XV, num. 11*. Ibid., line 6, *εὑρίσκομεν*. Read *εὑρίσκοιμεν*. Ibid., line 7, *δή*. Read *δέ*. Ibid., line 12, *καταβαίνουσαν*. The *ἢ* is clearly missing, which matches the preceding *ἤτοι*; read therefore *ἢ καταβαίνουσαν*. Consonant with these, Origen has *hom. 1 in Ezech.*: "Through the freedom of the will, some strive toward the summit of the good, others fall into the depths of malice." So also *Philoc. p. 66*...: "So that accordingly, on account of their choices, some advance from worse to better, while others fall from better to worse, and others ascend from good to better, while others from bad... the malice being poured out, become worse..." That *ἢ καταβαίνουσαν* should be read was previously noticed and warned by Bentley. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 18, *ἡ ταχεῖα θεραπεία*. Compare *Philoc. pp. 57, 60, 61, 103, 104*, and *Contra Cels. p. 600*, where, arguing about the same matter, Origen uses almost these same words.
Ibid. C, line 12, *οὐδὲ δέκα*. It must be read exactly so, as the editions of the Septuagint have it. In the manuscript, however, the twin *δέ* through the carelessness of a scribe merged into one, i.e., *οὐδέ*.
Col. 541 B, line 5, *βίου*. That is, *βιότου*, or the things necessary for living. Hesych.
Ibid., line 15, *τῆς γενέσεως ἐπιθυμήσαντες*. The Oxford edition rendered this poorly into Latin as "mindful of [their] birth"; which neither the words signify, nor does the sense of the place admit it. Origen here uses the word *γένεσις* in a sense strictly philosophical, by which he denotes the things of this world which are subject to perpetual change through generation and corruption, because the ancient philosophers designated that part of the world which is below the moon—in which "nature and *genesis* hold dominion"—by that one word *ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ*, as Ocellus teaches us in *De universo, cap. 2*: "*Genesis* is where there is change and transition of the underlying things... for the orbit around the moon is the isthmus of immortality and of *Genesis*." Hence also Suidas: "*Genesis*, the world, i.e., that beneath the moon." So also Philo, *Concerning the creation of the world*, "assigned the proper name of *Genesis* to the sensible world." So also Celsus ap. Origen, p. 727: "*Genesis*, the visible." And Origen himself, p. 728, says that the things of *Genesis* are the things seen, or the things of the world: in which sense he says, pp. 786, 787, that "earthly demons are bound to *Genesis*, and are lovers of the body." And p. 788 he recounts the "works of demons drawing down human souls into the things of *Genesis*." Furthermore, by *ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ* here, Origen especially intends those earthly things which pertain to the delights of food, such as meats were, for which the Israelite people burned with desire, *τοῦ βίου ἐπιθυμοῦντες*, as appears from what went before. But in this sense the Pythagoreans taught abstinence from certain foods, especially those that are sweet, "and which constrain the mortal body toward *Genesis*," symbolically indicating, as Hierocles says, "abstinence from the whole of *Genesis* by one single example." *Comm. in aur. carm.*, p. 216, *ed. Cant.*
Ibid., line 14, *ἐπιθυμεῖτε, μισήσαντες*. It seems to me it should be read, *ἐπεθυμεῖτε, μισήσαντες δὲ τὸ ἐπιθυμούμενον*.
Ibid. C, line 1, *παλινδρομεῖν*. I supply *δυνηθῆτε* from the preceding, which also seems necessary to be added, so that it may be, *παλινδρομεῖν δυνηθῆτε ἐπί*.
ἐπί*. Ibid., line 2, ὠρέχθησαν. Read ὠρέχθητε, so that the persons may be the same as those above. So also I indicated in my reading of the text. Ruæus.
Ibid., D, line 5, *τῷ φρονίμῳ πυρί*. That is, with the purifying fire which the wise God uses. He means, however, the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning, of which mention is made in the places cited a little later, Is. IV, 4, and Mal. III, 2. This fire indeed Clement of Alexandria calls "sobering fire" (Protrept. p. 47), "not a base fire, but a WISE one..." (Strom. VII, 851), and says it is that which God used in the burning of Sodom, "pouring out a little of that WISE fire upon their licentiousness" (Paed. I, 8). What kind of fire this is, Clement further shows in *Ec. proph.*, ch. 25: "Fire is understood as a good power, destructive of the worse, and saving of the better; wherefore this fire is also called WISE by the prophets." And Origen himself says much the same in Homily 1 on Ezekiel: "Who is this fire, which the law proclaims and the Gospel does not silence? 'The work of each, whatever it is, the fire will test.' Who, O apostle, is this fire that tests our works? Who is this fire so wise as to guard my gold, that it may consume only the evils which I have done..." Likewise Minucius Felix calls the infernal fire "wise": "There, a wise fire burns and restores members; it plucks and feeds," etc.
Ibid., line 10, *παχύνονται*. This is to say, they contract a stupor of the heart and become *παχύνοοι* (dull-witted); for he refers to the words of Isaiah VI, 10, "The heart of this people has waxed fat."
Col. 544, line 2, *εὐεργεσίαν*. In the same way Origen describes the use of this purgatorial fire in *Contra Cels.*, Book V, p. 588: "The purifying fire is applied... to each of those who have need of judgment by fire, which is at the same time a healing, burning but not consuming those who have no material needing to be consumed by that fire; but burning and consuming those who have built with wood, hay, or stubble in the building of their deeds... not that we say God brings fire like a cook, but as a benefactor to those needing toil and fire." And p. 242: "The Word... says that those who according to their desert need the economy of punishment by fire will be in these until some end," etc. Confer Book V *Contra Cels.*, p. 509, and Homily 2 on Jeremiah, and Homily 16.
Ibid., line 7, *τῇ*. Read *ἐν τῇ*. For so it is in the place cited here, Esth. V, 6, "How can I be saved in the destruction?" The reading of the codex can be borne; the order of the words will be: *ἐννοῆσαι τῇ σφῶν ἀπωλεία, περὶ τοῦ σώζεσθαι*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 15, παραδιδόντες ἑκόντες. *ἑαυτούς* is clearly missing, so that it may be *παραδιδόντες ἑαυτοὺς ἑκόντες*.
Ibid. B, line 1, *οὐ γὰρ βούλεται*. Origen has almost the same thing in Homily 19 on Jeremiah: "God does not tyrannize, but reigns, and reigning He does not force, but persuades, and wishes that they should willingly offer themselves, those [for whom read 'under'—*ὑπ'*] His economy, so that good may not be in anyone by necessity, but by his own will," etc. Similarly Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* VII, p. 855: "Neither indeed will the one being saved be saved against his will; for he is not soulless. But rather he will willingly and by choice hasten toward salvation... therefore God does not do good by necessity, but does good according to the choice of those who turn [to Him] on their own."
Ibid., line 6, *σκληρύνει*. Confer Origen's Commentary on Exodus, p. 17, etc., edited by Huet.
Ibid., line 8, *ἀσεβής*. Read *ἀσεβεῖς*.
Ibid., line 12, *ἐπὶ πλεονάκις*. This seems to be said less correctly; therefore read *ἔτι πλεονάκις*.
Ibid., line 15, *εἰσήγαγες*. Thus the LXX, Ps. LXV, 11, but in codex 2 it seems written wrong as *εἰσήγαγεν*, as the Oxford edition has it.
Ibid. C, line 2, *τὸ εὐτελέστερον... στρουθίων*. "The most vile of winged creatures, the sparrows," Oxford edition, which is by no means to be borne: for who, I ask, is this most vile of sparrows? And why of "winged creatures"? A For as if there were some sparrow not winged. Therefore for *στραθέων* read *στρουθίον*, and you will restore a sound sentiment.
Ibid., line 5, *ἐμπίπτει εἰς παγίδα*. Origen also has the same in *Contra Cels.*, Book VII, p. 794, "he falls into a snare," just as Chrysostom also reads: but in the editions of Matth. X, 29, it is read "it will fall upon the ground."
Ibid., line 9. The copyist wrote *τῶν καρδιῶν* incorrectly. Read *τῆς καρδίας*.
Ibid., line 12, *ἑαυτῷ*. Read *ἐπιγνώσει*; for the Apostle in the cited place Rom. I, 28, says this, and the sense here demands it.
Ibid. D, line 8, *ἡ*. Read *καὶ διαγνωσθῆναι τὰ κεκρυμμένα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ...* Concerning this, see the similar place in Origen's Commentary on Exodus, p. 25: "Just as physicians of the rabies-bitten draw the poison to the surface," etc.
Col. 545 A, line 10, *τὸ εὐεξαπάτητον*. Read *τὸ Εὔας εὐεξαπάτητον*; for he is clearly speaking of Eve: and *Εὔας* dropped out because of the following similar syllables *εὐεξ*. Bentley in his book on her "reasoning" (λογισμοῦ αὐτῆς) reads "the reasoning of Eve" (λογισμοῦ τῆς Εὔας). Ruæus.
Ibid., line 14, *ἐπὶ*. Read *ἐπεὶ τῇ ἰδίᾳ*, which the sense clearly demands. Bentley also advised that it be read so. Ruæus.
Ibid. B, line 3, *ἐγεγύμνωτο*. Here the copyist wrote *ἐγύμνωτο*.
Ibid., line 12, *ὁ πάντα συνεργῶν*. In the same way Origen cites this place, Rom. VIII, 28, in his Commentary on the Psalms, p. 46...: "God works all things together for good," exhibiting the meaning, that is, of the Apostle, not his very words; since Origen himself in *Comm. in Joan.*, vol. XX, no. 20, and in Rom. p. 424, 425, reads with the editions... "all things work together for good," leaving out "God," and declares the words of the Apostle to be as they are in Rom. p. 424: "So the passages stand: 'We know that to those who love God all things work together for good'." Whence it seems to me to be clear that "God" was not found in the original by Origen or other Fathers in some exemplars of Sacred Scripture; but rather that, from the less accurate citations of the Fathers themselves, it crept into some codices of the sacred text; and to such an extent that it finally gave rise to various readings; just as we noted above concerning "the Father," Luke XVI, 19, in the note to number 15.
Ibid., line 13, *παρ' αὐτοῖς*. Wrongly, as I think, written for *παρ' αὑτούς*, that is, *per se*, or by themselves, and by their own judgment. So above number 6: B "Of this praiseworthy or blameworthy [thing] happening *παρ' ἡμᾶς* (among us/by us)." In *Philocal.*, p. 64, "salvation comes *παρ' ἡμᾶς* (by us)." And *Contra Cels.*, p. 556, "to be *παρ' ἑαυτούς* (by themselves) in the things to be avoided," that is, as he says a little later, "by their own cause," or *ἐκ τοῦ ἐν αὐτοῖς αὐτεξουσίου* (from the free will in them), as he speaks ibid., p. 585. But in the same way Diogenianus the Peripatetic uses this phrase while disputing against Chrysippus about fate, as found in Eusebius, *Praep. evang.* VI, 8, where he says: "That which is *παρ' ἡμᾶς* (by us) is most contrary to fate... but *παρ' ἡμᾶς* is [that which arrives] from our being zealous and acting... it becomes evident that the cause *παρ' ἡμᾶς* is released from fate." C And a little later: "If the thing, he says, is not according to some fate, and according to an external necessary cause... thus the power of choice *παρ' ἡμᾶς* is entirely destroyed." See note to number 7. Wherefore the place of Origen is to be translated thus: "Whatever they are going to be *per se*, He has foreseen." Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 3, *τε*. This particle is extra; or perhaps, as is customary, it was written for *γε*.
Ibid., line 13, *ῥύεται*. All editions have the *τῶν Ο'* [LXX]... "The Lord will deliver them" (ῥύσεται αὐτοὺς ὁ Κύριος).
Ibid. D, line 5, *κατὰ τι πάτριον παρ' Ἑβραίοις*. Truly wonderful is this Origenian distinction between the words *θλίβεσθαι* and *στενοχωρεῖσθαι*, sought from the Hebrews who knew no Greek. But if by "Hebrews" he means the Septuagint, the matter will not become clearer thereby; for among them the words are nowhere, either separately or (as often happens) conjunctly used, to distinguish in meaning so...
Ibid., line 2, *Patrem, from whom*. Thus in Eph. III, 14, the Alexandrian manuscript has it, as did all the Greek manuscripts which Jerome had seen; and for this reason he notes that those words, *of our Lord Jesus Christ*, which exist in the published versions, are an addition of the Latins. Mill, however, who opposes Jerome, flees from this passage of Origen, though it is most worthy of note; he flees also from Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catecheses* VII, where it is read in the same way. It must be admitted, however, that Origen in his *Protrepticus to the Martyrs* does read with the published versions... *of our Lord Jesus Christ; from whom*, p. 173, ed. Bas.
Ibid., *every family*. In these words of the Apostle, there is no variation anywhere, as Mill attests; but the Oxford editor, exercising his critical judgment at last in this passage, has carved out a new reading for us; for Origen, he says, seems here to have read *worship* [latreia] instead of *family* [patria]; otherwise his argument is less consistent. But I do not see the reason for these claims; for why, if *family* is read, should his argument not stand, which is drawn not from these words, but clearly from the Apostle’s preceding words? Genuflection, he says, is necessary in prayers, as it is a sign of a humble and submissive mind, as Paul says: *For this cause I bow my knees to the Father...* Certainly, there is no cause here why he should read, or seem to have read, in the following part, *worship*: nor could he indeed read it in that way unless he wished to subvert the Apostle’s own argument; since from the words so read, *from whom every worship... is named*, from which the whole of worship... is named, no sense at all arises, unless it be a most inept one.
Ibid., line 5, *and of each... himself*. A copyist corrupted this passage; which I think should be healed thus: *Jesus [has humbled] each of those things that are and has humbled Himself to it*. For thus the sentence will stand on a firm footing. The sentence will stand on a firm footing provided that for *and of each*, one reads only *and each*, as I have already advised. RUÆUS.
Ibid., line 12, *spherical*. That the world and all celestial bodies are *spherical*, Timaeus Locrus taught in *On the Soul of the World*, and Plato followed him in the *Timaeus*, as did Aristotle, *On the Heavens* II, 4, 8; indeed, Xenophanes, Plato, and the Stoics attributed this same form to God, the fabricator of the world: to whom, in truth, as far as concerns celestial bodies, Origen seems here to support; but whether he followed the philosophers to such an extent that he would say the image of the celestial body will be *spherical*, which the saints will put on in the heavens, and that their bodies, without the distinction of limbs, will be raised in a conglobate figure, I vehemently doubt; even if, on account of some less cautiously spoken words, this dogma has been affixed to him, and under his name condemned by the ancients; for Justinian says in his *Epistle to Mennas*: "He [Origen] says that in the resurrection the bodies of men are raised spherical: O the folly and ignorance of this brain-damaged interpreter of Greek dogmas!" and in the *Anathematisms* subjoined to his epistle: "If anyone says that in the resurrection the bodies of men are raised spherical, and does not confess that we are raised upright, let him be anathema. Anathema to Origen who held these things." Concil. tom. V, col. 664 and 680. But Origen himself sufficiently refutes this calumny in his *Commentary on the Psalms*, saying: "This form, which is now in us, will remain even in the coming age," as his words are cited by Pamphilus in his *Apology*; which exist in Greek as follows, ap. Epiphanius: "It must be understood that in the present, the form is the same as it will be in the future," *Hær*. LXIV, n. 14, and in Methodius.
Ibid. C, line 6, *rectum*. In lexicons this word is hardly found, and therefore, as I think, in the Oxford edition, *subtended* is badly substituted in its place, which is also rendered worse in Latin, that is, *tended intestine*, which they concede to be the intestines. Yet in the manuscript it is clearly written *rectum intestine*, that is, the rectum; of which Galen often makes mention, and describes in more than one place; e.g., *On the Use of Parts*, book V, where the *intestine* is divided into six parts.
first the *ekphysis*, second the *nēstis*, third the *leptos* (small) intestine, fourth the *typhlon* (blind/caecum), fifth the *kōlon* (colon), and sixth the *apeuthysmenon* (rectum). Galen, in *On the Administration of Anatomical Procedures*, book V, says: "First is the *ekphysis*; after this the *nēstis*; next to this is the *leptos*... upon this is the *typhlon*, then the *kōlon*, at the end of which, extending toward the anus, is what is called the *apeuthysmenon* intestine." Also, in *On the Preservation of Health*, book I: "The excrement is conveyed little by little through all the intestines as far as the cavity of what is called the *apeuthysmenon*." Pollux, a contemporary of Galen, in book II, section 210, says: "To the *kōlon* (i.e. the intestine) the *apeuthysmenon* is attached." Aristotle, who lived some five hundred years A earlier than these, when the intestine first began to be distinguished into parts by anatomists, although he does not use this term, nevertheless shows us its etymology and origin in *On the Parts of Animals*, III, 14: "In all those creatures that do not have straight intestines... this part (i.e., the intestine) becomes wider, and they have the so-called *kōlon*, and a certain part of the intestine is the *typhlon*... and the part after this extends straight toward the exit of the excrement," for these last words clearly indicate that intestine which was later called the *apeuthysmenon*. Origen makes mention of this intestine, which is fashioned like a sewer to receive and discharge the waste of the body, in order to put to shame those who attribute all the same parts, which are necessary for earthly beings, to celestial beings as well. It will not be irrelevant to note that this new reading, which Wetstein parades—presenting us with the word *apenthismon* instead of *apeuthysmenon*, which is in the codex—is a new and utterly worthless word. In the *Problems* of Alexander of Aphrodisias, book I, the "straight intestine" (*apeuthymmenon enteron*) is read. RUEUS. B Ibid., line 15, "every place." Origen illustrates this more fully *Against Celsus*, p. 726: "A Christian is persuaded that every place in the world is a part of the whole, the temple of God being the entire world. But praying in every place, having closed the eyes of the senses and raised those of the soul, he transcends the whole world." Likewise also Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, p. 856: "Every place is truly sacred, in which we receive the thought of God."
Ibid., D, line 1, "bring [plural]." Read "bring [singular]," as the editions of the Complutentian, Aldine, and Roman have it correctly. In the Alexandrian codex, however, it is incorrectly written "bring [plural]," and so indeed this Holmiensis codex has "bring [plural]." See note on no. 3.
Col. 553 A, line 12, "concerning this place." About this topic, that is, this argument or head of discourse. For Origen here, in the manner of rhetoricians and philosophers, uses the word *topos* (place): which Hierocles in Photius, col. 1389, explains thus: "We are accustomed," he says, "when discussing certain writings, to say that when we have arrived at *that place* of the discourse, we shall state that head, calling the form of the writings a *topos*." Thus Origen later enumerates four *topoi* (topics) of prayers, number 33. C Ibid., line 15, "of illicit intercourse... permitted." This passage is certainly corrupt; for it manifestly disagrees with the words of the Apostle, and it is impious to say that he permitted Christians to indulge in "illicit intercourse" by way of allowance: thus, I believe, it must be left and reduced to a sound sense, for in the *place* [i.e., topic], not only of illicit intercourse, but also of that which is permitted by the apostolic word... Origen is doubting whether it is not only in the case of illicit intercourse, but not even in the case of legitimate marriage, that it is permitted by the Apostle to pray. Both the Holmiensis codex and the Colbertinus have "of illicit intercourse under the," etc. For "illicit," read with Bentleius "non-illicit," and everything will be sound. RUEUS.
Ibid., C, line 1, "shall be rescued." Ms., "shall be puffed up." Ibid., line 5, "to him who understands." That is, to him who is able to understand, as he said in no. 29. Ibid., line 10, "double church." Origen has the same words in Homily 23 on Luke: "A double church is present here, one of men, the other of angels." Interpreted by Jerome.
Ibid., line 13, "of the later bride." This is less true, since Tobias had no wife before Sarah: read therefore "of the later bride"... that is, who afterwards became his daughter-in-law.
Ibid., D, line 6, "with the Ephesians." Among whom, one must understand, Paul was staying when he wrote that first Epistle to the Corinthians. See Mill's note on the subscription of that Epistle, and Proleg. § 9. Mill, however, omitted this place of Origen, which is most worthy of note.
Col. 556 A, line 2, "in Corinth." The persons whom Paul "thinks to be co-workers" are clearly missing; you should therefore read, "...to be co-workers... [with] those in Corinth."
Ibid., line 13, "upon him who gives himself to the devil of the angels." The sleepy librarian gave this passage thus corrupted; and the Oxford edition made it much more corrupt, exhibiting it as "upon the devil of his own angels." The true reading, however, as I opine, is *epidō heauton angelō diabolou*, "let him give himself to the angel of the devil." Thus Origen above, "To whom should one give himself?" And Herodian, a contemporary of Origen, book I, "Fearing that his youth... might give itself to drunken carousals." Concerning these matters, which he says about the holy angel and the angel of the devil, there are consonant words in Homily 12 on Luke: "Two angels attend each one, one of justice, one of iniquity: if good thoughts are in our heart... there is no doubt that the angel of the Lord speaks to us: if, however, evil things are turned over in our heart, the angel of the devil speaks to us"; which words are indeed Hermas's (mand. vi) and are cited again under his name by Origen in Homily 35 on Luke and *On First Principles* I, 2. Thus also in the Commentary on Matthew, vol. XIII, no. 28, he says that for evil and faithless men "a holy angel is not present, but they, while they persist in unbelief, are under the angels of Satan": which he also confirms by the testimony of Hermas (Similitudes 6, 7, 8) in vol. XIV, no. 21: "It might be accepted that that which is from the Shepherd concerning certain persons, who, while they believe, are becoming under Michael, but through love of pleasure are falling away from him and are becoming under the [read 'under the angel'] of luxury," etc., to which those in number 6 of this little book are almost twin: "To him who is going to be such and such a person, I will send this ministering angel..., but to this other... who has been seduced... I will remove this better co-worker, upon whose departure, he being his own executioner, the power... shall stand over him, ready for these certain sins, having given himself over to sinning, he will call them [the powers] toward himself." But we have exhibited the reading of this passage from the Colbertine codex. RUEUS. D Ibid., B, line 1, "of the will overseeing." This is said quite absurdly; for the divine will does not oversee, but the angels who obey the divine will oversee the Church. Therefore it must by all means be read "overseeing [as a participle, plural]," i.e., of the angels. Thus no. 11: "It must be supposed that the presence of the angels who oversee and minister to God is gathered together."
Ibid., line 5, "to those occupied." Read "those occupied [as a participle]," that is, if they gather in the Church after the manner of merchants to transact worldly affairs, like those who were buying and selling in the temple. See Commentary on Matthew, vol. XVI, no. 20. Bentleius previously advised that it should be read "those occupied." RUEUS.
Ibid., line 6, "they shall not oversee." That is, by the angels. Thus, however, Origen in Homily 23 on Luke: "Angels are present in the Church, in that one alone which deserves it, and which is of Christ. For the house of God, or the Church, is a house of prayer, in which 'nothing else ought to be' than prayer, and every holy deed, and one that invokes the oversight of God," as he says in the Commentary on Matthew, vol. XVI, no. 22.
Ibid., C, line 7, "temples." Thus, for sure, the scribe making a mistake...
for *laous* (peoples) has instead put *laō* (to the people) in the Holm. codex in Origen's *Commentary on Matthew*, Vol. X, no. 20. And so it is in Stephanus of Byzantium, in the entry "Tēōs," where for *hidrusei ton naon* (he will establish the temple) Salmasius found in the manuscripts *hidrusei ton laon* (he will establish the people). That *laous* should be read, I have already pointed out along with Bentley. RUÆUS.
Ibid., line 9, *arthaisē*. This does not agree with the evangelic narrative, in which that fig tree is not said to have been uprooted, but merely withered; therefore, it seems to me that *artheisē* was written here rashly by a scribe in place of *xērantheisē* (withered); for Origen himself speaks thus not once in his *Commentary on Matthew*, vol. XVI, no. 26, and that he said it here is clearly apparent from the subsequent word *xērainomenoi* (being withered): for how could they be *xērainomenoi* (being withered) like the fig tree, if *xērantheisē* (having withered) had not preceded? For if *artheisē* (having been removed) is placed, you will see nothing *homoion* (similar) at all. But the Oxford editor, instead of *artheisē*, here substituted *astheisē*, as if from *azomai*, *ateio*.
Ibid., line 12, *epi*. Delete *epi*, and read *to exaireton... paristanti tēs tōn*.
Ibid., *tē*. Read *en tē Ekklēsia*. So in the similar passage above, "One should not scorn the prayers in the [churches], as they have something special for the person who genuinely comes together." And in *Matthew*, Vol. XVI, no. 21: "Those who come together into the same place in the name of Jesus Christ in the congregations are overseen."
Ibid. D, line 3, *tou te kai tou*. Read *tōn te... kai tōn...*, so that he reviews those four climates, two, namely, to the north and south, two to the east and west. Thus Dionysius of Utica: "From the four climates the four authentic winds blow," in Salmasius, *Exerc. Plin.*, p. 882.
Ibid., line 4, *to pros anatolen*. Thus Origen, *Homily 5 on Numbers*: "From all the regions of the sky," he says, "we turn to the part of the sunrise and pour forth our prayer." Confer Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* VII, p. 856; Tertullian, *Apology*, ch. 16; Pseudo-Justin, *Questions and Answers to the Orthodox*, 118; *Apostolic Constitutions*, II, 57, with the notes of Cotelier; Sidonius Apollinaris, *Epistle* II, 10; with the notes of Savaro and the authors cited by Fabricius in *Bibliographia antiquaria*, p. 361.
Ibid., no. 6, *alēthinou phōtos*. That is, of Christ, John 1:9, who is also called *Anatolē* (the Rising) in Zechariah 6:12, and Luke 1:78: "The Rising, the Savior, especially in Luke, 'The Rising from on high has visited us';" and in Zechariah, "Behold the man, the Rising is his name." Eucherius, *De Formulis Spiritualibus ad Veranum*, ch. *Theor. Ecc.* in *Biblioth. PP.* XII, p. 378, Paris edition.
Col. 557 A, line 4, *prosakaloumenon*. Read *prokaloumenon*, that is, which provokes, invites, entices. For Origen uses this verb in this little book, as also elsewhere, throughout; e.g., no. 6: "He will provoke him to certain sins..." And no. 7: "Fantasies provoke our instability." And no. 14: "The Word is provoked unto imitation..." And no. 25: "Provoking our soul to the works of the flesh." But frequently it happens (as Budé notes, p. 17), that in authors, by the error of scribes, one of these is read in place of the other. Which the famous Montfaucon also showed to be the case for others composed of *pro* and *pros* in his *Palæographia Græca*, p. 343. In this way, to pass over other things, we noted that in this booklet no. 6, *prosdialēpteon* was written for *prodialēpteon*, and in no. 27, *prokeimenon* for *proskeimenon*. But shortly after, read *hos men anthr. tōn*. — That *prokaloumenon* should be read, Bentley had already warned. RUÆUS.
Ibid., line 12, *kata touton ton logon*. Here I suspect *kata to eulogon* (according to what is reasonable) should be read, as it follows shortly after; for he seems to repeat previously stated things there. But the Oxford editor has exhibited this passage to us, contrary to the faith of the codex, mutilated thus: *kata touton, ē epi dysin*....
1688 Ibid. B, line 6, *synymnoumenō*. Read *kai en tō hagiō Pneumati synymnoumenou*.
Col. 560 A, line 6, *deuteron*. Read *deuteron de*.
Ibid. B, line 2, *ho anaball... ho ekteinōn*. Both are missing in all editions of the Septuagint.
Ibid. C, line 3, *tou Nabar*. The matter itself cries out that this is to be read: but for this, the sleepy-headed scribe wrote *tou thanatou*.
Ibid., line 8, *katesmikrynthēn*. MS, *katesmakrynthēn*.
Ibid., line 9, *elalēsas*. MS, *elalēsa*.
Ibid., line 13, *dia ton*. The editions of the Septuagint have *kai dia ton*....
Ibid., line 14, *epoiēsas*. MS, *epoiēsa*.
Ibid. D, line 8, *mē synelkysēs me meta hamartōlōn*. Theodoret also reads thus, as the Septuagint editions of Complutum and Aldus rightly have. But in the Roman edition and the Alexandrian codex of the Oxford edition, is read: *mē synelkysēs meta hamartōlōn tēn psychēn mou*.
Col. 561 A, line 7, *hymin d*. Read *hymin*, to you, or, they have been elaborated for your sake. But the Oxford edition wrongly has here *hantēs*, a name (which nowhere exists) in place of the verb.
Ibid., line 9, *adelphoi*. The Oxford editor wrongly gathers from this in his preface that this Tatiana was the blood sister of Ambrose; while the words themselves indicate not the sisterhood of blood, but only that of piety: in which sense indeed Tatiana was also Origen's sister and Ambrose his brother, just as he often calls him—namely, all Christians, of whatever lineage or race they may be, are brothers in Jesus Christ, as He Himself says, "but all you are brothers," Matthew 23:8. And in this sense Jerome calls Eustochium his mistress and daughter and sister: "For I ought," he says, "to call the bride of my Lord, mistress... Therefore, my Eustochium, daughter, mistress, fellow-servant, sister; for one is the name of age, another of merit, another of religion, this is the name of charity." As for who this Tatiana was, it is entirely uncertain, nor do I think there is any need for inquiry.
Ibid., line 44, *labōn*. Namely, *autos*, which is understood before *dynēthēnai*. For this is the order of the words: *ouk apoginōskō... autos dynēthēnai... labōn...* Namely, the nominative is placed in the Attic manner for the accusative *emauton labonta*.... So too Origen above, section 17: "He will say that he himself does not wish, and does not eat himself, and does not walk himself." And so also the Apostle, II Cor. 10:2: *Deomai to mē parōn tharrēsai*. And Demosthenes himself *De Corona*: "I do not pride myself on having escaped by writing..., I omit the having been crowned myself many times before." See more in Budé, p. 1043. But the Oxford editor, not bearing this *labōn*, put *labonta* in its place, rightly, I confess, unless it be that he, whether deceived by an unreliable copyist or otherwise induced, proposed this, along with many other things, to the reader as the very words of the codex: which indeed resulted very unsuccessfully for him in many instances; so much so that hundreds of times he has substituted things alien to the truth for the correct ones of the codex, and that often to the utmost detriment of the meaning, as we have demonstrated in some of them according to the circumstances. From these, therefore, we have represented all things of the codex to you as accurately as we could, and we have deemed it sufficient to have noted only its faults; except that we have relegated a few things to the bottom of the page for just reasons, as it seemed, where they remain subject to your eyes regardless. We shall truly consider our labor here to have been well placed if we seem to you as fortunate in correcting a few of the faults as we have been faithful in exhibiting them all.
JOANNIS CROII OBSERVATIONES AD ORIGENIS LIBRUM SEXTUM CONTRA CELSUM
Revocatur Lector ad numeros crassiores textui insertos.A Deinde he mentions those seven princes of the demons, who are nowhere called by that name by Christians, but whom, I think, they took from the Ophites.
OBSERVATIONS.
They are called "Rulers" by Celsus; but by the Magi, "Cosmocrators," as can be seen in the fictitious Testament of Solomon. The Manichaeans, positing two principles, called the devil—as Psellus speaks—and also the One whom they called Christ... Satan (John xiv, 30). Paul... Eph. ii, 2. Oecumenius says, in the Epistle of 1 John: The Apostle designates evil angels by many names, and calls them (Eph. vi, 11, 12). Hence Damascenus and Athanasius say: Arnobius book 1, "rectors and princes of the world." The Chaldeans, indeed, as the Scholiast of Synesius reports, say they are "beasts of the earth," because they are entangled in earthly and bodily pleasures.
He says there are seven of those demons. The Testament of Solomon and the Arbatel, fictitious and profane books, recount as many; Nicomachus Gerasinus, in his book of Arithmetic, makes mention of seven angels: B wherefore also... and demons, and likewise they are called angels and archangels; which are seven in number, so that the hebdomad is most aptly [called] an "angel," or perhaps also a certain "guard" from the same; for not only will there be seven leaders besides the number of the guardians, but also because they who guard the whole, and hold it together in consistency and eternal duration, are such stars. And I saw the seven angels who stand before God. Concerning the protection of angels over nations and cities: "The nations are placed under angels, as Moses, the saint and servant of God, bears witness to me, interpreting the word in sequence and saying: 'Ask your father, and he will tell you, your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High divided the nations, as he scattered the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God; and the Lord’s portion became his people Jacob, the cord of his inheritance, Israel.'" C ...that Christians ought not to abandon the Church of God, to call upon angels, and to hold meetings. "It has seemed good also to us to set forth such things accurately, so that we may not seem ignorant of what Celsus promised to know; but rather that we may demonstrate more accurately than he that we Christians have known them, as being not the words of Christians, but entirely alien to salvation, and in no way inscribed with [the names of] Jesus, or Savior, or God, or teacher, or Son of God. But according to the ignorance of themselves (or Prunicus), Jaldabaoth, being cast forth, came down to the lowest places, and made..." D