This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
IT is not, my reverend Ambrosius, because we seek after many
words—a thing which is forbidden, and in the indulgence of which it is
impossible to avoid sin(1)—that we now begin the fifth book of our
reply to the treatise of Celsus, but with the endeavour, so far as may
be within our power, to leave none of his statements without
examination, and especially those in which it might appear to some that
he had skilfully assailed us and the Jews. If it were possible, indeed,
for me to enter along with my words into the conscience of every one
without exception who perUses this work, and to extract each dart which
wounds him who is not completely protected with the "whole armour" of
God, and apply a rational medicine to cure the wound inflicted by
Celsus, which prevents those who listen to his words from remaining
"sound in the faith," I would do so. But since it is the work of God
alone, in conformity with His own Spirit, and along with that of
Christ, to take up His abode invisibly in those persons whom He judges
worthy of being visited; so, on the other hand, is our object to try,
by means of arguments and treatises, to confirm men in their faith, and
to earn the name of "workmen needing not to be ashamed, tightly
dividing the word of truth."(2) And there is one thing above all which
it appears to us we ought to do, if we would discharge faithfully the
task enjoined upon us by you, and that is to overturn to the best of
our ability the confident assertions of Celsus. Let us then quote such
assertions of his as follow those which we have already refuted (the
reader: must decide whether we have done so successfully or not), and
let us reply to them. And may God grant that we approach not our
subject with our understanding and reason empty and devoid of divine
inspiration, that the faith of those whom
we wish to aid may not depend upon human wisdom, but that, receiving the "mind" of Christ from His Father, who alone can bestow it, and being strengthened by participating in the word of God, we may pull down "every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,"(3) and the imagination of Celsus, who exalts himself against us, and against Jesus, and also against Moses and the prophets, in order that He who "gave the word to those who published it with great power"(4) may supply us also, and bestow upon us "great power," so that faith in the word and power of God may be implanted in the minds of all who will peruse our work.
We have now, then, to refute that statement of his which runs as
follows: "O Jews and Christians, no God or son of a God either came or
will come down (to earth). But if you mean that certain angels did so,
then what do you call them? Are they gods, or some other race of
beings? Some other race of beings (doubtless), and in all probability
demons." Now as Celsus here is guilty of repeating himself (for in the
preceding pages such assertions have been frequently advanced by him),
it is unnecessary to discuss the matter at greater length, seeing what
we have already said upon this point may suffice. We shall mention,
however, a few considerations out of a greater number, such as we deem
in harmony with our former arguments, but which have not altogether the
same bearing as they, and by which we shall show that in asserting
generally that no God, or son of God, ever descended (among men), he
overturns not only the opinions entertained by the majority of mankind
regarding the manifestation of Deity, but also what was formerly
admitted by himself. For if the general statement, that "no God or son
of God has come down or will come down," be truly maintained by Celsus,
it is manifest that we have here overthrown the belief in the existence
of gods upon the earth who had descended from heaven either to predict
the future to mankind or to heal them by means of divine responses; and
neither the Pythian Apollo, nor AEsculapius, nor any other among those
supposed to have done so, would be a god descended from heaven. He
might, indeed, either be a god who had obtained as his lot (the
obligation) to dwell on earth for ever, and be thus a fugitive, as it
were, from the abode of the gods, or he might be one who had no power
to share in the society of the gods in heaven;(1) or else Apollo, and
AEsculapius, and those others who are believed to perform acts on
earth, would not be gods, but only certain demons, much inferior to
those wise men among mankind, who on account of their virtue ascend to
the vault(2) of heaven.
But observe how, in his desire to subvert our opinions, he who
never acknowledged himself throughout his whole treatise to be an
Epicurean, is convicted of being a deserter to that sect. And now is
the time for you, (reader), who peruse the works of Celsus, and give
your assent to what has been advanced, either to overturn the belief in
a God who visits the human race, and exercises a providence over each
individual man, or to grant this, and prove the falsity of the
assertions of Celsus. If you, then, wholly annihilate providence, you
will falsify those assertions of his in which he grants the existence
of "God and a providence," in order that you may maintain the truth of
your own position; but if, on the other hand, you still admit the
existence of providence, because you do not assent to the dictum of
Celsus, that "neither has a God nor the son of a God come down nor is
to come down(3) to mankind," why not rather carefully ascertain from
the statements made regarding Jesus, and the prophecies uttered
concerning Him, who it is that we are to consider as having come down
to the human race as God, and the Son of God?—whether that Jesus who
said and ministered so much, or those who under pretence of oracles and
divinations, do not reform the morals of their worshippers, but who
have besides apostatized from the pure and holy worship and honour due
to the Maker of all things, and who tear away the souls of those who
give heed to them from the one only visible and true God, under a
pretence of paying honour to a multitude of deities?
But since he says, in the next place, as if the Jews or
Christians had answered regarding those who come down to visit the
human race, that they were angels: "But if ye say that they are angels,
what do you call them?" he continues, "Are they gods, or some other
race of beings?" and then again introduces us as if answering, "Some
other race of beings, and probably demons,"—let us proceed to notice
these remarks. For we indeed acknowledge that angels are "ministering
spirits," and we say that "they are sent forth to minister for them who
shall be heirs of salvation;"(4) and that they ascend, bearing the
supplications of men, to the purest of the heavenly places in the
universe, or even to supercelestial regions purer still;(5) and that
they come down from these, conveying to each one, according to his
deserts, something enjoined by God to be conferred by them upon those
who are to be the recipients of His benefits. Having thus learned to
call these beings "angels" from their employments, we find that because
they are divine they are sometimes termed "god" in the sacred
Scriptures,(6) but not so that we are commanded to honour and worship
in place of God those who minister to us, and bear to us His blessings.
For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving,
is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is
above all the angels, the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself
shall we also pray and make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and
supplications to Him, if we have the capacity of distinguishing between
the proper use and abuse of prayer.(7)
For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their
nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason.
But, conformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of them, which
is something wonderful and mysterious, be obtained. Then this
knowledge, making known to us their nature, and the offices to which
they are severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with
confidence to any other than to the Supreme God, who is sufficient for
all things, and that through our Saviour the Son of God, who is the
Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and everything else which the writings of
God's prophets and the apostles of Jesus entitle Him. And it is enough
to secure that the holy angels of God be pro- pitious to us,(1) and
that they do all things on our behalf, that our disposition of mind
towards God should imitate as far as it is within the power of human
nature the example of these holy angels, who again follow the example
of their God; and that the conceptions which we entertain of His Son,
the Word, so far as attainable by us, should not be opposed to the
clearer conceptions of Him which the holy angels possess, but should
daily approach these in clearness and distinctness. But because Celsus
has not read our holy Scriptures, he gives himself an answer as if it
came from us, saying that we "assert that the angels who come down from
heaven to confer benefits on mankind are a different race from the
gods," and adds that "in all probability they would be called demons by
us:" not observing that the name "demons" is not a term of indifferent
meaning like that of "men," among whom some are good and some bad, nor
yet a term of excellence like that of "the gods," which is applied not
to wicked demons, or to statues, or to animals, but (by those who know
divine things) to what is truly divine and blessed; whereas the term
"demons" is always applied to those wicked powers, freed from the
encumbrance of a grosser body, who lead men astray, and fill them with
distractions and drag them down from God and supercelestial thoughts to
things here below.
He next proceeds to make the following statement about the
Jews:—"The first point relating to the Jews which is fitted to excite
wonder, is that they should worship the heaven and the angels who dwell
therein, and yet pass by and neglect its most venerable and powerful
parts, as the sun, the moon, and the other heavenly bodies, both fixed
stars and planets, as if it were possible that 'the whole' could be
God, and yet its parts not divine; or (as if it were reasonable) to
treat with the greatest respect those who are said to appear to such as
are in darkness somewhere, blinded by some crooked sorcery, or dreaming
dreams through the influence of shadowy spectres,(2) while those who
prophesy so clearly and strikingly to all men, by means of whom rain,
and heat, and clouds, and thunder (to which they offer worship), and
lightnings, and fruits, and all kinds of productiveness, are brought
about,—by means of whom God is revealed to them,—the most prominent
heralds among those beings that are above,—those that are truly
heavenly angels,—are to be regarded as of no account!" In making these
statements, Celsus appears to have fallen into confusion, and to have
penned them from false ideas of things which he did not understand; for
it is patent to all who investigate the practices of the Jews, and
compare them with those of the Christians, that the Jews who follow the
law, which, speaking in the person of God, says, "Thou shall have no
other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee an image, nor a
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth; thou shall not bow
down to them, nor serve them,"(3) worship nothing else than the Supreme
God, who made the heavens, and all things besides. Now it is evident
that those who live according to the law, and worship the Maker of
heaven, will not worship the heaven at the same time with God.
Moreover, no one who obeys the law of Moses will bow down to the angels
who are in heaven; and, in like manner, as they do not bow down to sun,
moon, and stars, the host of heaven, they refrain from doing obeisance
to heaven and its angels, obeying the law which declares: "Lest thou
lift up thine eyes to heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the
moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to
worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto
all nations."(4)
Having, moreover, assumed that the Jews consider the heaven to be
God, he adds that this is absurd; finding fault with those who bow down
to the heaven, but not also to the sun, and moon, and stars, saying
that the Jews do this, as if it were possible that "the whole" should
be God, and its several parts not divine. And he seems to call the
heaven "a whole," and sun, moon, and stars its several parts. Now,
certainly neither Jews nor Christians call the "heaven" God. Let it be
granted, however, that, as he alleges, the heaven is called God by the
Jews, and suppose that sun, moon, and stars are parts of
"heaven,"—which is by no means true, for neither are the animals and
plants upon the earth any portion of it,—how is it true, even
according to the opinions of the Greeks, that if God be a whole, His
parts also are divine? Certainly they say that the Cosmos taken as the
whole(5) is God, the Stoics calling it the First God, the followers of
Plato the Second, and some of them the Third. According to these
philosophers, then, seeing the whole Cosmos is God, its parts also are
divine; so that not only are human be- ings divine, but the whole of
the irrational creation, as being "portions" of the Cosmos; and besides
these, the plants also are divine. And if the rivers, and mountains,
and seas are portions of the Cosmos, then, since the whole Cosmos is
God, are the riven and seas also gods? But even this the Greeks will
not assert. Those, however, who preside over rivers and seas (either
demons or gods, as they call them), they would term gods. Now from this
it follows that the general statement of Celsus, even according to the
Greeks, who hold the doctrine of Providence, is false, that if any
"whole" be a god, its parts necessarily are divine. But it follows from
the doctrine of Celsus, that if the Cosmos be God, all that is in it is
divine, being parts of the Cosmos. Now, according to this view,
animals, as flies, and gnats, and worms, and every species of serpent,
as well as of birds and fishes, will be divine,—an assertion which
would not be made even by those who maintain that the Cosmos is God.
But the Jews, who live according to the law of Moses, although they may
not know how to receive the secret meaning of the law, which is
conveyed in obscure language, will not maintain that either the heaven
or the angels are God.
As we allege, however, that he has fallen into confusion in
consequence of false notions which he has imbibed, come and let us
point them out to the best of our ability, and show that although
Celsus considers it to be a Jewish custom to bow down to the heaven and
the angels in it, such a practice is not at all Jewish, but is in
violation of Judaism, as it also is to do obeisance to sun, moon, and
stars, as well as images. You will find at least in the book of
Jeremiah the words of God censuring by the mouth of the prophet the
Jewish people for doing obeisance to such objects, and for sacrificing
to the queen of heaven, and to all the host of heaven.(1) The writings
of the Christians, moreover, show, in censuring the sins committed
among the Jews, that when God abandoned that people on account of
certain sins, these sins (of idol-worship) also were committed by them.
For it is related in the Acts of the Apostles regarding the Jews, that
"God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is
written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye
offered to Me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years
in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the
star of your god Remphan, figures which you made to worship them."(2)
And in the writings of Paul, who was carefully trained in Jewish
customs, and converted afterwards to Christianity by a miraculous
appearance of Jesus, the following words may be read in the Epistle to
the Colossians: "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary
humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which
he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind; and not holding
the Head, from which all the body by joint and bands having nourishment
ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God."(3)
But Celsus, having neither read these verses, nor having learned their
contents from any other source, has represented, I know not how, the
Jews as not transgressing their law in bowing down to the heavens, and
to the angels therein.
And still continuing a little confused, and not taking care to
see what was relevant to the matter, he expressed his opinion that the
Jews were induced by the incantations employed in jugglery and sorcery
(in consequence of which certain phantoms appear, in obedience to the
spells employed by the magicians) to bow down to the angels in heaven,
not observing that this was contrary to their law, which said to them
who practised such observances: "Regard not them which have familiar
spirits,(4) neither seek after wizards,(5) to be defiled by them: I am
the LORD your God."(6) He ought, therefore, either not to have at all
attributed this practice to the Jews, seeing he has observed that they
keep their law, and has called them "those who live according to their
law;" or if he did attribute it, he ought to have shown that the Jews
did this in violation of their code. But again, as they transgress
their law who offer worship to those who are said to appear to them who
are involved in darkness and blinded by sorcery, and who dream dreams,
owing to obscure phantoms presenting themselves; so also do they
transgress the law who offer sacrifice to sun, moon, and stars.(7) And
there is thus great inconsistency in the same individual saying that
the Jews are careful to keep their law by not bowing down to sun, and
moon, and stars, while they are not so careful to keep it in the matter
of heaven and the angels.
And if it be necessary for us to offer a defence of our refusal
to recognise as gods, equally with angels, and sun, and moon, and
stars, those who are called by the Greeks "manifest and visible"
divinities, we shall answer that the law of Moses knows that these
latter have been apportioned by God among all the nations under the
heaven, but not amongst those who were selected by God as His chosen
people above all the nations of the earth. For it is written in the
book of Deuteronomy: "And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and
when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host
of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them, and serve them, which
the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations unto the whole heaven.
But the LORD hath taken us, and brought as forth out of the iron
furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto Him a people of inheritance, as
ye are this day."(1) The Hebrew people, then, being called by God a
"chosen generation, and a royal priesthood, and a holy nation, and a
purchased people,"(2) regarding whom it was foretold to Abraham by the
voice of the Lord addressed to him, "Look now towards heaven, and tell
the stars, if thou be able to number them: and He said unto him, So
shall thy seed be;"(3) and having thus a hope that they would become as
the stars of heaven, were not likely to bow down to those objects which
they were to resemble as a result of their understanding and observing
the law of God. For it was said to them: "The LORD our God hath
multiplied us; and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for
multitude."(4) In the book of Daniel, also, the following prophecies
are found relating to those who are to share in the resurrection: "And
at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that has been
written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust(5) of the
earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and
everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the
brightness of the firmament, and (those) of the many righteous(6) as
the stars for ever and ever,"(7) etc. And hence Paul, too, when
speaking of the resurrection, says: "And 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 differeth from another star in glory. So also is the
resurrection of the dead."(8) It was not therefore consonant to reason
that those who had been taught sublimely(9) to ascend above all created
things, and to hope for the enjoyment of the most glorious rewards
with God on account of their virtuous lives, and who had heard the words, "Ye are the light of I the world,"(10) and, "Let your light so shine before men, that they, seeing your good works, may glorify your Father who is in heaven,"(11) and who possessed through practice this brilliant and unfading wisdom, or who had secured even the "very reflection of everlasting light,"(12) should be so impressed with the (mere) visible light of sun, and moon, and stars, that, on account of that sensible light of theirs, they should deem themselves (although possessed of so great a rational light of knowledge, and of the true light, and the light of the world, and the light of men) to be somehow inferior to them, and to bow down to them; seeing they ought to be worshipped, if they are to receive worship at all, not for the sake of the sensible light which is admired by the multitude, but because of the rational and true light, if indeed the stars in heaven are rational and virtuous beings, and have been illuminated with the light of knowledge by that wisdom which is the "reflection of everlasting light." For that sensible light of theirs is the work of the Creator of all things, while that rational light is derived perhaps from the principle of free-will within them. (13)
But even this rational light itself ought not to be worshipped by
him who beholds and understands the true light, by sharing in which
these also are enlightened; nor by him who beholds God, the Father of
the true light,—of whom it has been said, "God is light, and in Him
there is no darkness at all."(14) Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon,
and stars because their light is visible and celestial, would not bow
down to a spark of fire or a lamp upon earth, because they see the
incomparable superiority of those objects which are deemed worthy of
homage to the light of sparks and lamps. So those who understand that
God is light, and who have apprehended that the Son of God is "the true
light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," and who
comprehend also how He says, "I am the light of the world," would not
rationally offer worship to that which is, as it were, a spark in sun,
moon, and stars, in comparison with God, who is light of the true
light. Nor is it with a view to depreciate these great works of God's
creative power, or to call them, after the fashion of Anaxagoras,
"fiery masses,"(15) that we thus speak of sun, and moon, and stars; but
because we perceive the inexpressible superiority of the divinity of
God, and that of His only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other
things. And being persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars
pray to the Supreme God through His only-begotten Son, we judge it
improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to
God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up
our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them
downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer(1) between
God and them.(2) And here I may employ this illustration, as beating
upon this point: Our Lord and Saviour, heating Himself on one occasion
addressed as "Good Master,"(3) referring him who used it to His own
Father, said, "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one,
that is, God the Father."(4) And since it was in accordance with sound
reason that this should be said by the Son of His Father's love, as
being the image of the goodness of God, why should not the sun say with
greater reason to those that bow down to him, Why do you worship me?
"for thou wilt worship the LORD thy God, and Him only shalt thou
serve;"(5) for it is He whom I and all who are with me serve and
worship. And although one may not be so exalted (as the sun),
nevertheless let such an one pray to the Word of God (who is able to
heal him), and still more to His Father, who also to the righteous of
former times "sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from
their destructions."(6)
God accordingly, in His kindness, condescends to mankind, not in
any local sense, but through His providence;(7) while the Son of God,
not only (when on earth), but at all times, is with His own disciples,
fulfilling the promise, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
the world."(8) And if a branch cannot bear fruit except it abide in the
vine, it is evident that the disciples also of the Word, who are the
rational branches of the Word's true vine, cannot produce the fruits of
virtue unless they abide in the true vine, the Christ of God, who is
with us locally here below upon the earth, and who is with those who
cleave to Him in all parts of the world, and is also in all places with
those who do not know Him. Another is made manifest by that John who
wrote the Gospel, when, speaking in the person of John the Baptist, he
said, "There standeth one among you whom ye know
not; He it is who cometh after me."(9) And it is absurd, when He who fills heaven and earth, and who said, "Do I not fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD,"(10) is with us, and near us (for I believe Him when He says, "I am a God nigh at hand, and not afar off, saith the LORD"(11) to seek to pray to sun or moon, or one of the stars, whose influence does not reach the whole of the world.(12) But, to use the very words of Celsus, let it be granted that "the sun, moon, and stars do foretell rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunders," why, then, if they really do foretell such great things, ought we not rather to do homage to God, whose servant they are in uttering these predictions, and show reverence to Him rather than His prophets? Let them predict, then, the approach of lightnings, and fruits, and all manner of productions, and let all such things be under their administration; yet we shall not on that account worship those who themselves offer worship, as we do not worship even Moses, and those prophets who came from God after him, and who predicted better things than rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunders, and lightnings, and fruits, and all sorts of productions visible to the senses. Nay, even if sun, and moon, and stars were able to prophesy better things than rain, not even then shall we worship them, but the Father of the prophecies which are in them, and the Word of God, their minister. But grant that they are His heralds, and truly messengers of heaven, why, even then ought we not to worship the God whom they only proclaim and announce, rather than those who are the heralds and messengers?
Celsus, moreover, assumes that sun, and moon, and stars are
regarded by us as of no account. Now, with regard to these, we
acknowledge that they too are "waiting for the manifestation of the
sons of God," being for the present subjected to the "vanity" of their
material bodies, "by reason of Him who has subjected the same in
hope."(13) But if Celsus had read the innumerable other passages where
we speak of sun, moon, and stars, and especially these,—"Praise Him,
all ye stars, and thou, O light," and, "Praise Him, ye heaven of
heavens,"(14)—he would not have said of us that we regard such mighty
beings, which "greatly praise" the Lord God, as of no account. Nor did
Celsus know the passage: "For the earnest expectation of the creature
waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was
made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath
subjected the same in hope; because the creature itself also shall be
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of
the children of God."(1) And with these words let us terminate our
defence against the charge of not worshipping sun, moon, and stars. And
let us now bring forward those statements of his which follow, that we
may, God willing, address to him in reply such arguments as shall be
suggested by the light of truth.
The following, then, are his words: "It is folly on their part to
suppose that when God, as if He were a cook,(2) introduces the fire
(which is to consume the world), all the rest of the human race will be
burnt up, while they alone will remain, not only such of them as are
then alive, but also those who are long since dead, which latter will
arise from the earth clothed with the self-same flesh (as during life);
for such a hope is simply one which might be cherished by worms. For
what sort of human soul is that which would still long for a body that
had been subject to corruption? Whence, also, this opinion of yours is
not shared by some of the Christians, and they pronounce it to be
exceedingly vile, and loathsome, and impossible; for what kind of body
is that which, after being completely corrupted, can return to its
original nature, and to that self-same first condition out of which it
fell into dissolution? Being unable to return any answer, they betake
themselves to a most absurd refuge, viz., that all things are possible
to God. And yet God cannot do things that are disgraceful, nor does He
wish to do things that are contrary to His nature; nor, if (in
accordance with the wickedness of your own heart) you desired anything
that was evil, would God accomplish it; nor must you believe at once
that it will be done. For God does not rule the world in order to
satisfy inordinate desires, or to allow disorder and confusion, but to
govern a nature that is upright and just.(3) For the soul, indeed, He
might be able to provide an everlasting life; while dead bodies, on the
contrary, are, as Heraclitus observes, more worthless than dung. God,
however, neither can nor will declare, contrary to all reason, that the
flesh, which is full of those things which it is not even honourable to
mention, is to exist for ever. For He is the reason of all things that
exist, and therefore can do nothing either contrary to reason or
contrary to Himself."
Observe, now, here at the very beginning, how, in ridiculing the
doctrine of a conflagration of the world, held by certain of the Greeks
who have treated the subject in a philosophic spirit not to be
depreciated, he would make us, "representing God, as it were, as a
cook, hold the belief in a general conflagration;" not perceiving that,
as certain Greeks were of opinion (perhaps having received their
information from the ancient nation of the Hebrews), it is a
purificatory fire which is brought upon the world, and probably also on
each one of those who stand in need of chastisement by the fire and
healing at the same time, seeing it burns indeed, but does not consume,
those who are without a material body,(4) which needs to be consumed by
that fire, and which burns and consumes those who by their actions,
words, and thoughts have built up wood, or hay, or stubble, in that
which is figuratively termed a "building."(5) And the holy Scriptures
say that the Lord will, like a refiner's fire and fullers' soap,(6)
visit each one of those who require purification, because of the
intermingling in them of a flood of wicked matter proceeding from their
evil nature; who need fire, I mean, to refine, as it were, (the dross
of) those who are intermingled with copper, and tin, and lead. And he
who likes may learn this from the prophet Ezekiel.(7) But that we say
that God brings fire upon the world, not like a cook, but like a God,
who is the benefactor of them who stand in need of the discipline of
fire,(8) will be testified by the prophet Isaiah, in whose writings it
is related that a sinful nation was thus addressed: "Because thou hast
coals of fire, sit upon them: they shall be to thee a help."(9) Now the
Scripture is appropriately adapted to the multitudes of those who are
to peruse it, because it speaks obscurely of things that are sad and
gloomy,(10) in order to terrify those who cannot by any other means be
saved from the flood of their sins, although even then the attentive
reader will dearly discover the end that is to be accomplished by these
sad and painful punishments upon those who endure them. It is
sufficient, however, for the present to quote the words of Isaiah: "For
My name's sake will I show Mine anger, and My glory I will bring upon
thee, that I may not destroy thee."(11) We have thus been under the
necessity of referring in obscure terms to questions not fitted to the
capacity of simple believers,(12) who require a simpler instruction in
words, that we might not appear to leave unrefuted the accusation of
Celsus, that "God introduces the fire (which is to destroy the world),
as if He were a cook."
From what has been said, it will be manifest to intelligent
hearers how we have to answer the following: "All the rest of the race
will be completely burnt up, and they alone will remain." It is not to
be wondered at, indeed, if such thoughts have been entertained by those
amongst us who are called in Scripture the "foolish things" of the
world, and "base things," and "things which are despised," and "things
which are not," because "by the foolishness of preaching it pleased God
to save them that believe on Him, after that, in the wisdom of God, the
world by wisdom knew not God,"(1)—because such individuals are unable
to see distinctly the sense of each particular passage,(2) or unwilling
to devote the necessary leisure to the investigation of Scripture,
notwithstanding the injunction of Jesus, "Search the Scriptures."(3)
The following, moreover, are his ideas regarding the fire which is to
be brought upon the world by God, and the punishments which are to
befall sinners. And perhaps, as it is appropriate to Children that some
things should be addressed to them in a manner befitting their
infantile condition, to convert them, as being of very tender age, to a
better course of life; so, to those whom the word terms "the foolish
things of the world," and "the base," and "the despised," the just and
obvious meaning of the passages relating to punishments is suitable,
inasmuch as they cannot receive any other mode of conversion than that
which is by fear and the presentation of punishment, and thus be saved
from the many evils (which would befall them).(4) The Scripture
accordingly declares that only those who are unscathed by the fire and
the punishments are to remain,—those, viz., whose opinions, and
morals, and mind have been purified to the highest degree; while, on
the other hand, those of a different nature—those, viz., who,
according to their deserts, require the administration of punishment by
fire—will be involved in these sufferings with a view to an end which
it is suitable for God to bring upon those who have been created in His
image, but who have lived in opposition to the will of that nature
which is according to His image. And this is our answer to the
statement, "All the rest of the race will be completely burnt up, but
they alone are to remain."
Then, in the next place, having either himself misunderstood the
sacred Scriptures, or those (interpreters) by whom they were not
understood, he proceeds to assert that "it is said by us that there
will remain at the time of the visitation which is to come upon the
world by the fire of purification, not only those who are then alive,
but also those who are long ago dead;" not observing that it is with a
secret kind of wisdom that it was said by the apostle of Jesus: "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."(5) Now he ought to have noticed what was the meaning of him
who uttered these words, as being one who was by no means dead, who
made a distinction between himself and those like him and the dead, and
who said afterwards, "The dead shall be raised incorruptible," and "we
shall be changed." And as a proof that such was the apostle's meaning
in writing those words which I have quoted from the first Epistle to
the Corinthians, I will quote also from the first to the Thessalonians,
in which Paul, as one who is alive and awake, and different from those
who are asleep, speaks as follows: "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 who 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."(6) Then, again, after this,
knowing that there were others dead in Christ besides himself and such
as he, he subjoins the words, "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."(7)
But since he has ridiculed at great length the doctrine of the
resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the Churches, and
which is more clearly understood by the more intelligent believer; and
as it is unnecessary again to quote his words, which have been already
adduced, let us, with regard to the problem(8) (as in an apologetic
work directed against an alien from the faith, and for the sake of
those who are still "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about
with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"(1)), state and
establish to the best of our ability a few points expressly intended
for our readers. Neither we, then, nor the holy Scriptures, assert that
with the same bodies, without a change to a higher condition, "shall
those who were long dead arise from the earth and live again;" for in
so speaking, Celsus makes a false charge against us. For we may listen
to many passages of Scripture treating of the resurrection in a manner
worthy of God, although it may, suffice for the present to quote the
language of Paul from the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he
says: "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what
body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened,
except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body
that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other
grain; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every
seed his own body."(2) Now, observe how in these words he says that
there is sown, "not that body that shall be;" but that of the body
which is sown and cast naked into the earth (God giving to each seed
its own body), there takes place as it were a resurrection: from the
seed that was east into the ground there arising a stalk, e.g., among
such plants as the following, viz., the mustard plant, or of a larger
tree, as in the olive,(3) or one of the fruit-trees.
God, then, gives to each thing its own body as He pleases: as in
the case of plants that are sown, so also in the case of those beings
who are, as it were, sown in dying, and who in due time receive, out of
what has been "sown," the body assigned by God to each one according to
his deserts. And we may hear, moreover, the Scripture teaching us at
great length the difference between that which is, as it were, "sown,"
and that which is, as it were, "raised" from it in these words: "It is
sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in
dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised
in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."(4)
And let him who has the capacity understand the meaning of the words:
"As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the
heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne
the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the
heavenly."(5) And although the apostle wished to conceal the secret
meaning of the passage, which was not adapted to the simpler class of
believers, and to the understanding of the common people, who are led
by their faith to enter on a better course of life, he was nevertheless
obliged afterwards to say (in order that we might not misapprehend his
meaning), after "Let us bear the image of the heavenly," these words
also: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."(6)
Then, knowing that there was a secret and mystical meaning in the
passage, as was becoming in one who was leaving, in his Epistles, to
those who were to come after him words full of significance, he
subjoins the following, "Behold, I show you a mystery;"(7) which is his
usual style in introducing matters of a profounder and more mystical
nature, and such as are fittingly concealed from the multitude, as is
written in the book of Tobit: "It is good to keep close the secret of a
king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,"(8)—in a way
consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage
of the multitude. Our hope, then, is not" the hope of worms, nor does
our soul long for a body that has seen corruption;" for although it may
require a body, for the sake of moving from place to place,(9) yet it
understands—as having meditated on the wisdom (that is from above),
agreeably to the declaration, "The mouth of the righteous will speak
wisdom"(10)—the difference between the "earthly house," in which is
the tabernacle of the building that is to be dissolved, and that in
which the righteous do groan, being burdened,—not wishing to "put off"
the tabernacle, but to be "clothed therewith," that by being clothed
upon, mortality might be swallowed up of life. For, in virtue of the
whole nature of the body being corruptible, the corruptible tabernacle
must put on incorruption; and its other part, being mortal, and
becoming liable to the death which follows sin, must put on
immortality, in order that, when the corruptible shall have put on
incorruption, and the mortal immortality, then shall come to pass what
was predicted of old by the prophets,—the annihilation of the
"victory" of death (because it had conquered and subjected us to his
sway), and of its "sting," with which it stings the imperfectly
defended soul, and inflicts upon it the wounds which result from sin.
But since our views regarding the resurrection have, as far as
time would permit, been stated in part on the present occasion (for we
have systematically examined the subject in greater detail in other
parts of our writings); and as now we must by means of sound reasoning
refute the fallacies of Celsus, who neither understands the meaning of
our Scripture, nor has the capacity of judging that the meaning of our
wise men is not to be determined by those individuals who make no
profession of anything more than of a (simple) faith in the Christian
system, let us show that men, not to be lightly esteemed on account of
their reasoning powers and dialectic subtleties, have given expression
to very absurd(1) opinions. And if we must sneer(2) at them as
contemptible old wives' fables, it is at them rather than at our
narrative that we must sneer. The disciples of the Porch assert, that
after a period of years there will be a conflagration of the world, and
after that an arrangement of things in which everything will be
unchanged, as compared with the former arrangement of the world. Those
of them, however, who evinced their respect for this doctrine have said
that there will be a change, although exceedingly slight, at the end of
the cycle, from what prevailed during the preceding.(3) And these men
maintain, that in the succeeding cycle the same things will occur, and
Socrates will be again the son of Sophroniscus, and a native of Athens;
and Phaenarete, being married to Sophroniscus, will again become his
mother. And although they do not mention the word "resurrection," they
show in reality that Socrates, who derived his origin from seed, will
spring from that of Sophroniscus, and will be fashioned in the womb of
Phaenarete; and being brought up at Athens, will practise the study of
philosophy, as if his former philosophy had arisen again, and were to
be in no respect different from what it was before. Anytus and Melitus,
too, will arise again as accusers of Socrates, and the Council of
Areopagus will condemn him to death! But what is more ridiculous still,
is that Socrates will clothe himself with garments not at all different
from those which he wore during the former cycle, and will live in the
same unchanged state of poverty, and in the same unchanged city of
Athens! And Phalaris will again play the tyrant, and his brazen bull
will pour forth its bellowings from the voices of victims within,
unchanged from those who were condemned in the former cycle! And
Alexander of Pherae, too, will again act the tyrant with a cruelty
unaltered from the former time, and will condemn to death the same
"unchanged" individuals as before. But what need is there to go into
detail upon the doctrine held by the Stoic philosophers on such things,
and which escapes the ridicule of Celsus, and is perhaps
even venerated by him, since he regards Zeno as a wiser man than Jesus?
The disciples of Pythagoras, too, and of Plato, although they
appear to hold the incorruptibility of the world, yet fall into similar
errors. For as the planets, after certain definite cycles, assume the
same positions, and hold the same relations to one another, all things
on earth will, they assert, be like what they were at the time when the
same state of planetary relations existed in the world. From this view
it necessarily follows, that when, after the lapse of a lengthened
cycle, the planets come to occupy towards each other the same relations
which they occupied in the time of Socrates, Socrates will again be
born of the same parents, and suffer the same treatment, being accused
by Anytus and Melitus, and condemned by the Council of Areopagus! The
learned among the Egyptians, moreover, hold similar views, and yet they
are treated with respect, and do not incur the ridicule of Celsus and
such as he; while we, who maintain that all things are administered by
God in proportion to the relation of the free-will of each individual,
and are ever being brought into a better condition, so far as they
admit of being so,(4) and who know that the nature of our free-will
admits of the occurrence of contingent events(5) (for it is incapable
of receiving the wholly unchangeable character of God), yet do not
appear to say anything worthy of a testing examination.
Let no one, however, suspect that, in speaking as we do, we
belong to those who are indeed called Christians, but who set aside the
doctrine of the resurrection as it is taught in Scripture. For these
persons cannot, so far as their principles apply, at all establish that
the stalk or tree which springs up comes from the grain of wheat, or
anything else (which was cast into the ground); whereas we, who believe
that that which is "sown" is not "quickened" unless it die, and that
there is sown not that body that shall be (for God gives it a body as
it pleases Him, raising it in incorruption after it is sown in
corruption; and after it is sown in dishonour, raising it in glory; and
after it is sown in weakness, raising it in power; and after it is sown
a natural body, raising it a spiritual),—we preserve both the
doctrine(6) of the Church of Christ and the grandeur of the divine
promise, proving also the possibility of its accomplishment not by mere
assertion, but by arguments; knowing that although heaven and earth,
and the things that are in them, may pass away, yet His words regarding
each individual thing, being, as parts of a whole, or species of a
genus, the utterances of Him who was God the Word, who was in the
beginning with God, shall by no means pass away. For we desire to
listen to Him who said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words
shall not pass away."(1)
We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone
corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the gain of wheat
which has decayed returns to its former condition. But we do maintain,
that as above the gain of wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain
power(2) is implanted in the body, which is not destroyed, and from
which the body is raised up in incorruption. The philosophers of the
Porch, however, in consequence of the opinions which they hold
regarding the unchangeableness of things after a certain cycle, assert
that the body, after undergoing complete corruption, will return to its
original condition, and will again assume that first nature from which
it passed into a state of dissolution, establishing these points, as
they think, by irresistible arguments.(3) We, however, do not betake
ourselves to a most absurd refuge, saying that with God all things are
possible; for we know how to understand this word "all" as not
referring either to things that are "non-existent" or that are
inconceivable. But we maintain, at the same time, that God cannot do
what is disgraceful, since then He would be capable of ceasing to be
God; for if He do anything that is disgraceful, He is not God. Since,
however, he lays it down as a principle, that "God does not desire what
is contrary to nature," we have to make a distinction, and say that if
any one asserts that wickedness is contrary to nature, while we
maintain that "God does not desire what is contrary to nature,"—either
what springs from wickedness or from an irrational principle,—yet, if
such things happen according to the word and will of God, we must at
once necessarily hold that they are not contrary to nature. Therefore
things which are done by God, although they may be, or may appear to
some to be incredible, are not contrary to nature. And if we must press
the force of words,(4) we would say that, in comparison with what is
generally understood as "nature," there are certain things which are
beyond its power, which God could at any time do; as, e.g., in raising
man above the level of human nature, and causing him to pass into a
better and more divine condition, and preserving him in the same, so
long as he who is the object of His care shows by his actions that he
desires (the continuance of His help).
Moreover, as we have already said that for God to desire anything
unbecoming Himself would be destructive of His existence as Deity, we
will add that if man, agreeably to the wickedness of his nature, should
desire anything that is abominable,(5) God cannot grant it. And now it
is from no spirit of contention that we answer the assertions of
Celsus; but it is in the spirit of truth that we investigate them, as
assenting to his view that "He is the God, not of inordinate desires,
nor of error and disorder, but of a nature just and upright," because
He is the source of all that is good. And that He is able to provide an
eternal life for the soul we acknowledge; and that He possesses not
only the "power," but the "will." In view, therefore, of these
considerations, we are not at all distressed by the assertion of
Heraclitus, adopted by Celsus, that "dead bodies are to be cast out as
more worthless than dung;" and yet, with reference even to this, one
might say that dung, indeed, ought to be cast out, while the dead
bodies of men, on account of the soul by which they were inhabited,
especially if it had been virtuous, ought not to be cast out. For, in
harmony with those laws which are based upon the principles of equity,
bodies are deemed worthy of sepulture, with the honours accorded on
such occasions, that no insult, so far as can be helped, may be offered
to the soul which dwelt within, by casting forth the body (after the
soul has departed) like that of the animals. Let it not then be held,
contrary to reason, that it is the will of God to declare that the
grain of wheat is not immortal, but the stalk which springs from it,
while the body which is sown in corruption is not, but that which is
raised by Him in incorruption. But according to Celsus, God Himself is
the reason of all things, while according to our view it is His Son, of
whom we say in philosophic language, "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;"(6) while in our
judgment also, God cannot do anything which is contrary to reason, or
contrary to Himself.(7)
Let us next notice the statements of Celsus, which follow the
preceding, and which are as follow: "As the Jews, then, became a
peculiar people, and enacted laws in keeping with the customs of their
country,(1) and maintain them up to the present time, and observe a
mode of worship which, whatever be its nature, is yet derived from
their fathers, they act in these respects like other men, because each
nation retains its ancestral customs, whatever they are, if they happen
to be established among them. And such an arrangement appears to be
advantageous, not only because it has occurred to the mind of other
nations to decide some things differently, but also because it is a
duty to protect what has been established for the public advantage; and
also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth
were from the beginning allotted to different superintending
spirits,(2) and were thus distributed among certain governing
powers,(3) and in this manner the administration of the world is
carried on. And whatever is done among each nation in this way would be
rightly done, wherever it was agreeable to the wishes (of the
superintending powers), while it would be an act of impiety to get rid
of(4) the institutions established from the beginning in the various
places." By these words Celsus shows that the Jews, who were formerly
Egyptians, subsequently became a "peculiar people," and enacted laws
which they carefully preserve. And not to repeat his statements, which
have been already before us, he says that it is advantageous to the
Jews to observe their ancestral worship, as other nations carefully
attend to theirs. And he further states a deeper reason why it is of
advantage to the Jews to cultivate their ancestral customs, in hinting
dimly that those to whom was allotted the office of superintending the
country which was being legislated for, enacted the laws of each land
in co-operation with its legislators. He appears, then, to indicate
that both the country of the Jews, and the nation which inhabits it,
are superintended by one or more beings, who, whether they were one or
more, co-operated with Moses, and enacted the laws of the Jews.
"We must," he says, "observe the laws, not only because it has
occurred to the mind of others to decide some things differently, but
because it is a duty to protect what has been enacted for the public
advantage, and aim because, in all probability, the various quarters of
the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending
spirits, and were distributed among certain governing powers, and in
this manner the administration of the world is
carried on." Thus Celsus, as if he had forgotten what he had said against the Jews, now includes them in the general eulogy which he passes upon all who observe their ancestral customs, remarking: "And whatever is done among each nation in this way, would be rightly done whenever agreeable to the wishes (of the superintendents) ." And observe here, whether he does not openly, so far as he can, express a wish that the Jew should live in the observance of his own laws, and not depart from them, because he would commit an act of impiety if he apostatized; for his words are: "It would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places." Now I should like to ask him, and those who entertain his views, who it was that distributed the various quarters of the earth from the beginning among the different superintending spirits; and especially, who gave the country of the Jews, and the Jewish people themselves, to the one or more superintendents to whom it was allotted? Was it, as Celsus would say, Jupiter who assigned the Jewish people and their country to a certain spirit or spirits? And was it his wish, to whom they were thus assigned, to enact among them the laws which prevail, or was it against his will that it was done? You will observe that, whatever be his answer, he is in a strait. But if the various quarters of the earth were not allotted by some one being to the various superintending spirits, then each one at random, and without the superintendence of a higher power, divided the earth according to chance; and yet such a view is absurd, and destructive in no small degree of the providence of the God who presides over all things.
Any one, indeed, who chooses, may relate how the various quarters
of the earth, being distributed among certain governing powers, are
administered by those who superintend them; but let him tell us also
how what is done among each nation is done rightly when agreeable to
the wishes of the superintendents. Let him, for example, tell us
whether the laws of the Scythians, which permit the murder of parents,
are right laws; or those of the Persians, which do not forbid the
marriages of sons with their mothers, or of daughters with their own
fathers. But what need is there for me to make selections from those
who have been engaged in the business of enacting laws among the
different nations, and to inquire how the laws are rightly enacted
among each, according as they please the superintending powers? Let
Celsus, however, tell us how it would be an act of impiety to get rid
of those ancestral laws which permit the marriages of mothers and
daughters; or which pronounce a man happy who puts an end to his life
by hanging, or declare that they undergo entire purification who
deliver themselves over to the fire, and who terminate their existence
by fire; and how it is an act of impiety to do away with those laws
which, for example, prevail in the Tauric Chersonese, regarding the
offering up of strangers in sacrifice to Diana, or among certain of the
Libyan tribes regarding the sacrifice of children to Saturn. Moreover,
this inference follows from the dictum of Celsus, that it is an act of
impiety on the part of the Jews to do away with those ancestral laws
which forbid the worship of any other deity than the Creator of all
things. And it will follow, according to his view, that piety is not
divine by its own nature, but by a certain (external) arrangement and
appointment. For it is an act of piety among certain tribes to worship
a crocodile, and to eat what is an object of adoration among other
tribes; while, again, with others it is a pious act to worship a calf,
and among others, again, to regard the goat as a god. And, in this way,
the same individual will be regarded as acting piously according to one
set of laws, and impiously according to another; and this is the most
absurd result that can be conceived!
It is probable, however, that to such remarks as the above, the
answer returned would be, that he was pious who kept the laws of his
own country, and not at all chargeable with impiety for the
non-observance of those of other lands; and that, again, he who was
deemed guilty of impiety among certain nations was not really so, when
he worshipped his own gods, agreeably to his country's laws, although
he made war against, and even feasted on,(1) those who were regarded as
divinities among those nations which possessed laws of an opposite
kind. Now, observe here whether these statements do not exhibit the
greatest confusion of mind regarding the nature of what is just, and
holy, and religious; since there is no accurate definition laid down of
these things, nor are they described as having a peculiar character of
their own, and stamping as religious those who act according to their
injunctions. If, then, religion, and piety, and righteousness belong to
those things which are so only by comparison, so that the same act may
be both pious and impious, according to different relations and
different laws, see whether it will not follow that temperance(2) also
is a thing of comparison, and courage as well, and prudence, and the
other virtues, than which nothing could be more absurd! What we have
said, however, is sufficient
for the more general and simple class of answers to the allegations of Celsus. But as we think it likely that some of those who are accustomed to deeper investigation will fall in with this treatise, let us venture to lay down some considerations of a profounder kind, conveying a mystical and secret view respecting the original distribution of the various quarters of the earth among different superintending spirits; and let us prove to the best of our ability, that our doctrine is free from the absurd consequences enumerated above.
It appears to me, indeed, that Celsus has misunderstood some of
the deeper reasons relating to the arrangement of terrestrial affairs,
some of which are touched upon(3) even in Grecian history, when certain
of those who are considered to be gods are introduced as having
contended with each other about the possession of Attica; while in the
writings of the Greek poets also, some who are called gods are
represented as acknowledging that certain places here are preferred by
them(4) before others. The history of barbarian nations, moreover, and
especially that of Egypt, contains some such allusions to the division
of the so-called Egyptian homes, when it states that Athena, who
obtained Sais by lot, is the same who also has possession of Attica.
And the learned among the Egyptians can enumerate innumerable instances
of this kind, although I do not know whether they include the Jews and
their country in this division. And now, so far as testimonies outside
the word God bearing on this point are concerned, enough have been
adduced for the present. We say, moreover, that our prophet of God and
His genuine servant Moses, in his song in the book of Deuteronomy,
makes a statement regarding the portioning out of the earth in the
following terms: "When the Most High divided the nations, when He
dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according
to the number of the angels of God; and the portion was His people
Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance."(5) And regarding the
distribution of the nations, the same Moses, in his work entitled
Genesis, thus expresses himself in the style of a historical narrative:
"And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech; and it came
to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in
the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there."(6) A little further on he
continues: "And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which
the children of men had built. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is
one, and they have all one language; and this they have begun to do:
and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined
to do. Go to, let Us go down, and there confound their language, that
they may not understand one another's speech. And the LORD scattered
them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left
off to build the city and the tower. Therefore is the name of it called
Confusion;(1) because the LORD did there confound the language of all
the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the
face of all the earth."(2) In the treatise of Solomon, moreover, on
"Wisdom," and on the events at the time of the confusion of languages,
when the division of the earth took place, we find the following
regarding Wisdom: "Moreover, the nations in their wicked conspiracy
being confounded, she found out the righteous, and preserved him
blameless unto God, and kept him strong in his tender compassion
towards his son."(3) But on these subjects much, and that of a mystical
kind, might be said; in keeping with which is the following: "It is
good to keep close the secret of a king,"(4)—in order that the
doctrine of the entrance of souls into bodies (not, however, that of
the transmigration from one body into another) may not be thrown before
the common understanding, nor what is holy given to the dogs, nor
pearls be cast before swine. For such a procedure would be impious,
being equivalent to a betrayal of the mysterious declarations of God's
wisdom. of which it has been well said: "Into a malicious soul wisdom
shall not enter, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."(5) It is
sufficient, however, to represent in the style of a historic narrative
what is intended to convey a secret meaning in the garb of history,
that those who have the capacity may work out for themselves all that
relates to the subject. (The narrative, then, may be understood as
follows.)
All the people upon the earth are to be regarded as having used
one divine language, and so long as they lived harmoniously together
were preserved in the use of this divine language, and they remained
without moving from the east so long as they were imbued with the
sentiments of the "light," and of the "reflection" of the eternal
light.(6) But when they departed from the east, and began to entertain
sentiments alien to those of the east,(7) they found a place in the
land of Shinar (which, when interpreted, means "gnashing of teeth," by
way of indicating symbolically that they had lost the means of their
support), and in it they took up their abode. Then, desiring to gather
together material things,(8) and to join to heaven what had no natural
affinity for it, that by means of material things they might conspire
against such as were immaterial, they said, "Come, let us made bricks,
and burn them with fire." Accordingly, when they had hardened and
compacted these materials of clay and matter, and had shown their
desire to make brick into stone, and clay into bitumen, and by these
means to build a city and a tower, the head of which was, at least in
their conception, to reach up to the heavens, after the manner of the
"high things which exalt themselves against the I knowledge of God,"
each one was handed over (in proportion to the greater or less
departure from the east which had taken place among them, and in
proportion to the extent in which bricks had been converted into
stones, and clay into bitumen, and building carried on out of these
materials) to angels of character more or less severe, and of a nature
more or less stern, until they had paid the penalty of their daring
deeds; and they were conducted by those angels, who imprinted on each
his native language, to the different parts of the earth according to
their deserts: some, for example, to a region of burning heat, others
to a country which chastises its inhabitants by its cold; others,
again, to a land exceedingly difficult of cultivation, others to one
less so in degree; while a fifth were brought into a land filled with
wild beasts, and a sixth to a country comparatively free of these.
Now, in the next place, if any one has the capacity, let him
understand that in what assumes the form of history, and which contains
some things that are literally true, while yet it conveys a deeper
meaning, those who preserved their original language continued, by
reason of their not having migrated from the east, in possession of the
east, and of their eastern language. And let him notice, that these
alone became the portion of the Lord, and His people who were called
Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance; and these alone were
governed by a ruler who did not receive those who were placed under him
for the purpose of punishment, as was the case with the others. Let him
also, who has the capacity to perceive as far as mortals may, observe
that in the body politic(9) of those who were assigned to the Lord as
His pre-eminent portion, sins were committed, first of all, such as
might be forgiven, and of such a nature as not to make the sinner
worthy of entire desertion while subsequently they became more numerous
though still of a nature to be pardoned. And while remarking that this
state of matters continued for a considerable time, and that a remedy
was always applied, and that after certain intervals these persons
returned to their duty, let him notice that they were given over, in
proportion to their transgressions, to those to whom had been assigned
the other quarters of the earth; and that, after being at first
slightly punished, and having made atonement,(1) they returned, as if
they had undergone discipline,(2) to their proper habitations. Let him
notice also that afterwards they were delivered over to rulers of a
severer character—to Assyrians and Babylonians, as the Scriptures
would call them. In the next place, notwithstanding that means of
healing were being applied, let him observe that they were still
multiplying their transgressions, and that they were on that account
dispersed into other regions by the rulers of the nations that
oppressed them. And their own ruler intentionally overlooked their
oppression at the hands of the rulers of the other nations, in order
that he also with good reason, as avenging himself, having obtained
power to tear away from the other nations as many as he can, may do so,
and enact for them laws, and point out a manner of life agreeably to
which they ought to live, that so he may conduct them to the end to
which those of the former people were conducted who did not commit sin.
And by this means let those who have the capacity of
comprehending truths so profound, learn that he to whom were allotted
those who had not formerly sinned is far more powerful than the others,
since he has been able to make a selection of individuals from the
portion of the whole,(3) and to separate them from those who received
them for the purpose of punishment, and to bring them under the
influence of laws, and of a mode of life which helps to produce an
oblivion of their former transgressions. But, as we have previously
observed, these remarks are to be understood as being made by us with a
concealed meaning, by way of pointing out the mistakes of those who
asserted that "the various quarters of the earth were from the
beginning distributed among different superintending spirits, and being
allotted among certain governing powers, were administered in this
way;" from which statement Celsus took occasion to make the remarks
referred to. But since those who wandered away from the east were
delivered
over, on account of their sins, to "a reprobate mind," and to "vile affections," and to "uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,"(4) in order that, being sated with sin, they might hate it, we shall refuse our assent to the assertion of Celsus, that "because of the superintending spirits distributed among the different parts of the earth, what is done among each nation is rightly done;" for our desire iS to do what is not agreeable to these spirits.(5) For we see that it is a religious act to do away with the customs originally established in the various places by means of laws of a better and more divine character, which were enacted by Jesus, as one possessed of the greatest power, who has rescued us "from the present evil world," and "from the princes of the world that come to nought;" and that it is a mark of irreligion not to throw ourselves at the feet of Him who has manifested Himself to be holier and more powerful than all other rulers, and to whom God said, as the prophets many generations before predicted: "Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."(6) For He, too, has become the "expectation" of us who from among the heathen have believed upon Him, and upon His Father, who is God over all things.
The remarks which we have made not only answer the statements of
Celsus regarding the superintending spirits, but anticipate in some
measure what he afterwards brings forward, when he says: "Let the
second party come forward; and I shall ask them whence they come, and
whom they regard as the originator of their ancestral customs. They
will reply, No one, because they spring from the same source as the
Jews themselves, and derive their instruction and superintendence(7)
from no other quarter, and notwithstanding they have revolted from the
Jews." Each one of us, then, is come "in the last days," when one Jesus
has visited us, to the "visible mountain of the Lord," the Word that is
above every word, and to the "house of God," which is "the Church of
the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."(8) And we notice
how it is built upon "the tops of the mountains," i.e., the predictions
of all the prophets, which are its foundations. And this house is
exalted above the hills, i.e., those individuals among men who make a
profession of superior attainments in wisdom and truth; and all the
nations come to it, and the "many nations" go forth, and say to one
another, turning to the religion which in the last days has shone forth
through Jesus Christ: "Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the
LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His
ways, and we will walk in them."(1) For the law came forth from the
dwellers in Sion, and settled among us as a spiritual law. Moreover,
the word of the Lord came forth from that very Jerusalem, that it might
be disseminated through all places, and might judge in the midst of the
heathen selecting those whom it sees to be submissive and rejecting(2)
the disobedient, who are many in number. And to those who inquire of us
whence we come, or who is our founder,(3) we reply that we are come,
agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to "cut down our hostile and
insolent 'wordy'(4) swords into ploughshares, and to convert into
pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war."(5) For we no longer
take up "sword against nation," nor do we "learn war any more," having
become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader,
instead of those whom our fathers followed, among whom we were
"strangers to the covenant," and having received a law, for which we
give thanks to Him that rescued us from the error (of our ways),
saying, "Our fathers honoured lying idols, and there is not among them
one that causeth it to rain."(6) Our Superintendent, then, and Teacher,
having come forth from the Jews, regulates the whole world by the word
of His teaching. And having made these remarks by way of anticipation,
we have refuted as well as we could the untrue statements of Celsus, by
subjoining the appropriate answer.
But, that we may not pass without notice what Celsus has said
between these and the preceding paragraphs, let us quote his words: "We
might adduce Herodotus as a witness on this point, for he expresses
himself as follows: 'For the people of the cities Mares and Apis, who
inhabit those parts of Egypt that are adjacent to Libya, and who look
upon themselves as Libyans, and not as Egyptians, finding their
sacrificial worship oppressive, and wishing not to be excluded from the
use of cows' flesh, sent to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, saying that
there was no relationship between them and the Egyptians, that they
dwelt outside the Delta, that there was no community of sentiment
between them and the Egyptians, and that they wished to be allowed
to partake of all kinds of food. But the god would not allow them to do as they desired, saying that that country was a part of Egypt, which was watered by the inundation of the Nile, and that those were Egyptians who dwell to the south of the city of Elephantine, and drink of the river Nile.'(7) Such is the narrative of Herodotus. But," continues Celsus, "Ammon in divine things would not make a worse ambassador than the angels of the Jews,(8) so that there is nothing wrong in each nation observing its established method of worship. Of a truth, we shall find very great differences prevailing among the nations, and yet each seems to deem its own by far the best. Those inhabitants of Ethiopia who dwell in Meroe worship Jupiter and Bacchus alone; the Arabians, Urania and Bacchus only; all the Egyptians, Osiris and Isis; the Saites, Minerva; while the Naucratites have recently classed Serapis among their deities, and the rest according to their respective laws. And some abstain from the flesh of sheep, and others from that of crocodiles; others, again, from that of cows, while they regard swine's flesh with loathing. The Scythians, indeed, regard it as a noble act to banquet upon human beings. Among the Indians, too, there are some who deem themselves discharging a holy duty in eating their fathers, and this is mentioned in a certain passage by Herodotus. For the sake of credibility, I shall again quote his very words, for he writes as follows: 'For if any one were to make this proposal to all men, viz., to bid him select out of all existing laws the best, each would choose, after examination, those of his own country. Men each consider their own laws much the best, and therefore it is not likely than any other than a madman would make these things a subject of ridicule. But that such are the conclusions of all men regarding the laws, may be determined by many other evidences, and especially by the following illustration. Darius, during his reign, having summoned before him those Greeks who happened to be present at the time, inquired of them for how much they would be willing to eat their deceased fathers? their answer was, that for no consideration would they do such a thing. After this, Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatians. who are in the habit of eating their parents, and asked of them in the presence of these Greeks, who learned what passed through an interpreter, for what amount of money they would undertake to burn their deceased fathers with fire? on which they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no more.'(9) Such is the way, then, in which these matters are regarded. And Pindar appears to me to be right in saying that 'law' is the king of all things."(1)
The argument of Celsus appears to point by these illustrations to
this conclusion: that it is "an obligation incumbent on all men to live
according to their country's customs, in which case they will escape
censure; whereas the Christians, who have abandoned their native
usages, and who are not one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for
giving their adherence to the teaching of Jesus." Let him then tell us
whether it is a becoming thing for philosophers, and those who have
been taught not to yield to superstition, to abandon their country's
customs, so as to eat of those articles of food which are prohibited in
their respective cities? or whether this proceeding of theirs is
opposed to what is becoming? For if, on account of their philosophy,
and the instructions which they have received against superstition,
they should eat, in disregard of their native laws, what was
interdicted by their fathers, why should the Christians (since the
Gospel requires them not to busy themselves about statues and images,
or even about any of the created works of God but to ascend on high,
and present the soul to the Creator); when acting in a similar manner
to the philosophers, be censured for so doing? But if, for the sake of
defending the thesis which he has proposed to himself, Celsus, or those
who think with him, should say, that even one who had studied
philosophy would keep his country's laws, then philosophers in Egypt,
for example, would act most ridiculously in avoiding the eating of
onions, in order to observe their country's laws, or certain parts of
the body, as the head and shoulders, in order not to transgress the
traditions of their fathers. And I do not speak of those Egyptians who
shudder with fear at the discharge of wind from the body, because if
any one of these were to become a philosopher, and still observe the
laws of his country, he would be a ridiculous philosopher, acting very
unphilosophically.(2) In the same way, then, he who has been led by the
Gospel to worship the God of all things, and, from regard to his
country's laws, lingers here below among images and statues of men, and
does not desire to ascend to the Creator, will resemble those who have
indeed learned philosophy, but who are afraid of things which ought to
inspire no terrors, and who regard it as an act of impiety to eat of
those things which have been enumerated.
But what sort of being is this Ammon of Herodotus, whose words
Celsus has quoted, as if by way of demonstrating how each one ought to
keep his country's laws? For this Ammon would not allow the people of
the cities of Marea and Apis, who inhabit the districts adjacent to
Libya, to treat as a matter of indifference the use of cows' flesh,
which is a thing not only indifferent in its own nature, but which does
not prevent a man from being noble and virtuous. If Ammon, then,
forbade the use of cows' flesh, because of the advantage which results
from the use of the animal in the cultivation of the ground, and in
addition to this, because it is by the female that the breed is
increased, the account would possess more plausibility. But now he
simply requires that those who drink of the Nile should observe the
laws of the Egyptians regarding kine. And hereupon Celsus, taking
occasion to pass a jest upon the employment of the angels among the
Jews as the ambassadors of God, says that "Ammon did not make a worse
ambassador of divine things than did the angels of the Jews," into the
meaning of whose words and manifestations he instituted no
investigation; otherwise he would have seen, that it is not for oxen
that God is concerned, even where He may appear to legislate for them,
or for irrational animals, but that what is written for the sake of
men, under the appearance of relating to irrational animals, contains
certain truths of nature.(3) Celsus, moreover, says that no wrong is
committed by any one who wishes to observe the religious worship
sanctioned by the laws of his country; and it follows, according to his
view, that the Scythians commit no wrong, when, in conformity with
their country's laws, they eat human beings. And those Indians who eat
their own fathers are considered, according to Celsus, to do a
religious, or at least not a wicked act. He adduces, indeed, a
statement of Herodotus which favours the principle that each one ought,
from a sense of what is becoming, to obey his country's laws; and he
appears to approve of the custom of those Indians called Callatians,
who in the time of Darius devoured their parents, since, on Darius
inquiring for how great a sum of money they would be willing to lay
aside this usage, they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no
more.
As there are, then, generally two laws presented to us, the one
being the law of nature, of which God would be the legislator, and the
other being the written law of cities, it is a proper thing, when the
written law is not opposed to that of God, for the citizens not to
abandon it under pretext of foreign customs; but when the law of
nature, that is, the law of God, commands what is opposed to the
written law, observe whether reason will not tell us to bid a long
farewell to the written code, and to the desire of its legislators, and
to give ourselves up to the legislator God, and to choose a life
agreeable to His word, although in doing so it may be necessary to
encounter dangers, and countless labours, and even death and dishonour.
For when there are some laws in harmony with the will of God, which are
opposed to others which are in force in cities, and when it is
impracticable to please God (and those who administer laws of the kind
referred to), it would be absurd to contemn those acts by means of
which we may please the Creator of all things, and to select those by
which we shall become displeasing to God, though we may satisfy unholy
laws, and those who love them. But since it is reasonable in other
matters to prefer the law of nature, which is the law of God, before
the written law, which has been enacted by men in a spirit of
opposition to the law of God, why should we not do this still more in
the case of those laws which relate to God? Neither shall we, like the
Ethiopians who inhabit the parts about Meroe, worship, as is their
pleasure, Jupiter and Bacchus only; nor shall we at all reverence
Ethiopian gods in the Ethiopian manner; nor, like the Arabians, shall
we regard Urania and Bacchus alone as divinities; nor in any degree at
all deities in which the difference of sex has been a ground of
distinction (as among the Arabians, who worship Urania as a female, and
Bacchus as a male deity); nor shall we, like all the Egyptians, regard
Osiris and Isis as gods; nor shall we enumerate Athena among these, as
the Saites are pleased to do. And if to the ancient inhabitants of
Naucratis it seemed good to worship other divinities, while their
modern descendants have begun quite recently to pay reverence to
Scrapis, who never was a god at all, we shall not on that account
assert that a new being who was not formerly a god, nor at all known to
men, is a deity. For the Son of God, "the First-born of all creation,"
although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any
means on that account recent. For the holy Scriptures know Him to be
the most ancient of all the works of creation;(1) for it was to Him
that God said regarding the creation of man, "Let Us make man in Our
image, after Our likeness."(2)
I wish, however, to show how Celsus asserts without any good
reason, that each one reveres his domestic and native institutions. For
he declares that "those Ethiopians who inhabit Meroe know only of two
gods, Jupiter and Bacchus, and worship these alone; and that the
Arabians also know only of two, viz., Bacchus, who is also an Ethiopian
deity, and Urania, whose worship is confined to them." According to his
account, neither do the Ethiopians worship Urania, nor the Arabians
Jupiter. If, then, an Ethiopian were from any accident to fall into the
hands of the Arabians, and were to be judged guilty of impiety because
he did not worship Urania, and for this reason should incur the danger
of death, would it be proper for the Ethiopian to die, or to act
contrary to his country's laws, and do obeisance to Urania? Now, if it
would be proper for him to act contrary to the laws of his country, he
will do what is not right, so far as the language of Celsus is any
standard; while, if he should be led away to death, let him show the
reasonableness of selecting such a fate. I know not whether, if the
Ethiopian doctrine taught men to philosophize on the immortality of the
soul, and the honour which is paid to religion, they would reverence
those as deities who are deemed to be such by the laws of the
country.(3) A similar illustration may be employed in the case of the
Arabians, if from any accident they happened to visit the Ethiopians
about Meroe. For, having been taught to worship Urania and Bacchus
alone, they will not worship Jupiter along with the Ethiopians; and if,
adjudged guilty of impiety, they should be led away to death, let
Celsus tell us what it would be reasonable on their part to do. And
with regard to the fables which relate to Osiris and Isis, it is
superfluous and out of place at present to enumerate them. For although
an allegorical meaning may be given to the fables, they will
nevertheless teach us to offer divine worship to cold water, and to the
earth, which is subject to men, and all the animal creation. For in
this way, I presume, they refer Osiris to water, and Isis to earth;
while with regard to Serapis the accounts are numerous and conflicting,
to the effect that very recently he appeared in public, agreeably to
certain juggling tricks performed at the desire of Ptolemy, who wished
to show to the people of Alexandria as it were a visible god. And we
have read in the writings of Numenius the Pythagorean regarding his
formation, that he partakes of the essence of all the animals and
plants that are under the control of nature, that he may appear to have
been fashioned into a god, not by the makers of images alone, with the
aid of profane mysteries, and juggling tricks employed to invoke
demons, but also by magicians and sorcerers, and those demons who are
bewitched by their incantations.(1)
We must therefore inquire what may be fittingly eaten or not by
the rational and gentle(2) animal, which acts always in conformity with
reason; and not worship at random, sheep, or goats, or kine; to abstain
from which is an act of moderation,(3) for much advantage is derived by
men from these animals. Whereas, is it not the most foolish of all
things to spare crocodiles, and to treat them as sacred to some
fabulous divinity or other? For it is a mark of exceeding stupidity to
spare those animals which do not spare us, and to bestow care on those
which make a prey of human beings. But Celsus approves of those who, in
keeping with the laws of their country, worship and tend crocodiles,
and not a word does he say against them, while the Christians appear
deserving of censure, who have been taught to loath evil, and to turn
away from wicked works, and to reverence and honour virtue as being
generated by God, and as being His Son. For we must not, on account of
their feminine name and nature, regard wisdom and righteousness as
females;(4) for these things are in our view the Son of God, as His
genuine disciple has shown, when he said of Him, "Who of God is made to
us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."(5)
And although we may call Him a "second" God, let men know that by the
term "second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of
including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all
reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen
naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason,"
we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree
far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to
receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute
wisdom, and the absolute righteousness.
But since, after Celsus had spoken to the above effect of the
different kinds of laws, he adds the following remark, "Pindar appears
to me to be correct in saying that law is king of all
things," let us proceed to discuss this assertion. What law do you mean to say, good sir, is "king of all things?" If you mean those which exist in the various cities, then such an assertion is not true. For all men are not governed by the same law. You ought to have said that "laws are kings of all men," for in every nation some law is king of all. But if you mean that which is law in the proper sense, then it is this which is by nature "king of all things;" although there are some individuals who, having like robbers abandoned the law, deny its validity, and live lives of violence and injustice. We Christians, then, who have come to the knowledge of the law which is by nature "king of all things," and which is the same with the law of God, endeavour to regulate our lives by its prescriptions, having bidden a long farewell to those of an unholy kind.
Let us notice the charges which are next advanced by Celsus, in
which there is exceedingly little that has reference to the Christians,
as most of them refer to the Jews. His words are: "If, then, in these
respects the Jews were carefully to preserve their own law, they are
not to be blamed for so doing, but those persons rather who have
forsaken their own usages, and adopted those of the Jews. And if they
pride themselves on it, as being possessed of superior wisdom, and keep
aloof from intercourse with others, as not being equally pure with
themselves, they have already heard that their doctrine concerning
heaven is not peculiar to them, but, to pass by all others, is one
which has long ago been received by the Persians, as Herodotus
somewhere mentions. 'For they have a custom,' he says, 'of going up to
the tops of the mountains, and of offering sacrifices to Jupiter,
giving the name of Jupiter to the whole circle of the heavens.'(6) And
I think," continues Celsus, "that it makes no difference whether you
call the highest being Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun
like the Egyptians, or Pappaeus like the Scythians. Nor would they be
deemed at all holier than others in this respect, that they observe the
rite of circumcision, for this was done by the Egyptians and Colchians
before them; nor because they abstain from swine's flesh, for the
Egyptians practised abstinence not only from it, but from the flesh of
goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fishes as well; while Pythagoras and
his disciples do not eat beans, nor anything that contains life. It is
not probable, however, that they enjoy God's favour, or are loved by
Him differently from others, or that angels were sent from heaven to
them alone, as if they had had allotted to them 'some region of the
blessed,'(1) for we see both themselves and the country of which they
were deemed worthy. Let this band,(2) then, take its departure, after
paying the penalty of its vaunting, not having a knowledge of the great
God, but being led away and deceived by the artifices of Moses, having
become his pupil to no good end."
It is evident that, by the preceding remarks, Celsus charges the
Jews with falsely giving themselves out as the chosen portion of the
Supreme God above all other nations. And he accuses them of boasting,
because they gave out that they knew the great God, although they did
not really know Him, but were led away by the artifices of Moses, and
were deceived by him, and became his disciples to no good end. Now we
have in the preceding pages already spoken in part of the venerable and
distinguished polity of the Jews, when it existed amongst them as a
symbol of the city of God, and of His temple, and of the sacrificial
worship offered in it and at the altar of sacrifice. But if any one
were to turn his attention to the meaning of the legislator, and to the
constitution which he established, and were to examine the various
points relating to him, and compare them with the present method of
worship among other nations, there are none which he would admire to a
greater degree; because, so far as can be accomplished among mortals,
everything that was not of advantage to the human race was withheld
from them, and only those things which are useful bestowed.(3) And for
this reason they had neither gymnastic contests, nor scenic
representations, nor horse-races; nor were there among them women who
sold their beauty to any one who wished to have sexual intercourse
without offspring, and to cast contempt upon the nature of human
generation. And what an advantage was it to be taught from their tender
years to ascend above all visible nature, and to hold the belief that
God was not fixed anywhere within its limits, but to look for Him on
high, and beyond the sphere of all bodily substance!(4) And how great
was the advantage which they enjoyed in being instructed almost from
their birth, and as soon as they could speak,(5) in the immortality of
the soul, and in the existence of courts of justice under the earth,
and in the rewards provided for those who have lived righteous lives!
These truths, indeed, were proclaimed in the veil of fable to children,
and to those whose views of things were childish; while to those who
were already occupied in investigating the truth, and desirous of
making progress therein, these fables, so to speak, were transfigured
into the truths which were concealed within them. And I consider that
it was in a manner worthy of their name as the "portion of God" that
they despised all kinds of divination, as that which bewitches men to
no purpose, and which proceeds rather from wicked demons than from
anything of a better nature; and sought the knowledge of future events
in the souls of those who, owing to their high degree of purity,
received the spirit of the Supreme God.
But what need is there to point out how agreeable to sound
reason, and unattended with injury either to master or slave, was the
law that one of the same faith(6) should not be allowed to continue in
slavery more than six years?(7) The Jews, then, cannot be said to
preserve their own law in the same points with the other nations. For
it would be censurable in them, and would involve a charge of
insensibility to the superiority of their law, if they were to believe
that they had been legislated for in the same way as the other nations
among the heathen. And although Celsus will not admit it, the Jews
nevertheless are possessed of a wisdom superior not only to that of the
multitude, but also of those who have the appearance of philosophers;
because those who engage in philosophical pursuits, after the utterance
of the most venerable philosophical sentiments, fall away into the
worship of idols and demons, whereas the very lowest Jew directs his
look to the Supreme God alone; and they do well, indeed, so far as this
point is concerned, to pride themselves thereon, and to keep aloof from
the society of others as accursed and impious. And would that they had
not sinned, and transgressed the law, and slain the prophets in former
times, and in these latter days conspired against Jesus, that we might
be in possession of a pattern of a heavenly city which even Plato would
have sought to describe; although I doubt whether he could have
accomplished as much as was done by Moses and those who followed him,
who nourished a "chosen generation," and "a holy nation," dedicated to
God, with words free from all superstition.
But as Celsus would compare the venerable customs of the Jews
with the laws of certain nations, let us proceed to look at them. He is
of opinion, accordingly, that there is no differ- ence between the
doctrine regarding "heaven" and that regarding "God;" and he says that
"the Persians, like the Jews, offer sacrifices to Jupiter upon the tops
of the mountains,"—not observing that, as the Jews were acquainted
with one God, so they had only one holy house of prayer, and one altar
of whole burnt-offerings, and one censer for incense, and one high
priest of God. The Jews, then, had nothing in common with the Persians,
who ascend the summits of their mountains, which are many in number,
and offer up sacrifices which have nothing in common with those which
are regulated by the Mosaic code,—in conformity to which the Jewish
priests "served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,"
explaining enigmatically the object of the law regarding the
sacrifices, and the things of which these sacrifices were the symbols.
The Persians therefore may call the "whole circle of heaven" Jupiter;
but we maintain that "the heaven" is neither Jupiter nor God, as we
indeed know that certain beings of a class inferior to God have
ascended above the heavens and all visible nature: and in this sense we
understand the words, "Praise God, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters
that be above the heavens: let them praise the name of the LORD."(1)
As Celsus, however, is of opinion that it matters nothing whether
the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or
Ammoun (as the Egyptians term him), or Pappaeus (as the Scythians
entitle him), let us discuss the point for a little, reminding the
reader at the same time of what has been said above upon this question,
when the language of Celsus led us to consider the subject. And now we
maintain that the nature of names is not, as Aristotle supposes, an
enactment of those who impose them.(2) For the languages which are
prevalent among men do not derive their origin from men, as is evident
to those who are able to ascertain the nature of the charms which are
appropriated by the inventors of the languages differently, according
to the various tongues, and to the varying pronunciations of the names,
on which we have spoken briefly in the preceding pages, remarking that
when those names which in a certain language were possessed of a
natural power were translated into another, they were no longer able to
accomplish what they did before when uttered in their native tongues.
And the same peculiarity is found to apply to men; for if we were to
translate the name of one who was called from his birth by a certain
appellation in the Greek language into the Egyptian or Roman, or any
other tongue, we could not make him do or suffer the same things which
he would have done or suffered under the appellation first bestowed
upon him. Nay, even if we translated into the Greek language the name
of an individual who had been originally invoked in the Roman tongue,
we could not produce the result which the incantation professed itself
capable of accomplishing had it preserved the name first conferred upon
him. And if these statements are true when spoken of the names of men,
what are we to think of those which are transferred, for any cause
whatever, to the Deity? For example, something is transferred(3) from
the name Abraham when translated into Greek, and something is signified
by that of Isaac, and also by that of Jacob; and accordingly, if any
one, either in an invocation or in swearing an oath, were to use the
expression, "the God of Abraham," and "the God of Isaac," and "the God
of Jacob," he would produce certain effects, either owing to the nature
of these names or to their powers, since even demons are vanquiShed and
become submissive to him who pronounces these names; whereas if we say,
"the god of the chosen father of the echo, and the god of laughter, and
the god of him who strikes with the heel,"(4) the mention of the name
is attended with no result, as is the case with other names possessed
of no power. And in the same way, if we translate the word "Israel"
into Greek or any other language, we shall produce no result; but if we
retain it as it is, and join it to those expressions to which such as
are skilled in these matters think it ought to be united, there would
then follow some result from the pronunciation of the word which would
accord with the professions of those who employ such invocations. And
we may say the same also of the pronunciation of "Sabaoth," a word
which is frequently employed in incantations; for if we translate the
term into "Lord of hosts," or "Lord of armies," or "Almighty"
(different acceptation of it having been proposed by the interpreters),
we shall accomplish nothing; whereas if we retain the original
pronunciation, we shall, as those who are skilled in such matters
maintain, produce some effect. And the same observation holds good of
Adonai. If, then, neither "Sabaoth" nor "Adonai," when rendered into
what appears to be their meaning in the Greek tongue, can accomplish
anything, how much less would be the result among those who regard it
as a matter of indifference whether the highest being be called
Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!
It was for these and similar mysterious reasons, with which Moses
and the prophets were acquainted, that they forbade the name of other
gods to be pronounced by him who bethought himself of praying to the
one Supreme God alone, or to be remembered by a heart which had been
taught to be pure from all foolish thoughts and words. And for these
reasons we should prefer to endure all manner of suffering rather than
acknowledge Jupiter to be God. For we do not consider Jupiter and
Sabaoth to be the same, nor Jupiter to be at all divine, but that some
demon, unfriendly to men and to the true God, rejoices under this
title.(1) And although the Egyptians were to hold Ammon before us under
threat of death, we would rather die than address him as God, it being
a name used in all probability in certain Egyptian incantations in
which this demon is invoked. And although the Scythians may call
Pappaeus the supreme God, vet we will not yield our assent to this;
granting, indeed, that there is a Supreme Deity, although we do not
give the name Pappaeus to Him as His proper title, but regard it as one
which is agreeable to the demon to whom was allotted the desert of
Scythia, with its people and its language. He, however, who gives God
His title in the Scythian tongue, or in the Egyptian or in any language
in which he has been brought up, will not be guilty of sin.(2)
Now the reason why circumcision is practised among the Jews is
not the same as that which explains its existence among the Egyptians
and Colchians, and therefore it is not to be considered the same
circumcision. And as he who sacrifices does not sacrifice to the same
god, although he appears to perform the rite of sacrifice in a similar
manner, and he who offers up prayer does not pray to the same divinity,
although he asks the same things in his supplication; so, in the same
way, if one performs the rite of circumcision, it by no means follows
that it is not a different act from the circumcision performed upon
another. For the purpose, and the law, and the wish of him who performs
the rite, place the act in a different category. But that the whole
subject may be still better understood, we have to remark that the term
for "righteousness"(3) is the same among all the Greeks; but
righteousness is shown to be one thing according to the view of
Epicurus; and another according to the Stoics, who deny the threefold
division of the soul; and a different thing again according to the
followers of Plato, who hold that righteousness is the proper business
of the parts of the soul.(4) And so also the "courage"(5) of Epicures
is one thing, who would undergo some labours in order to escape from a
greater number; and a different thing that of the philosopher of the
Porch, who would choose all virtue for its own sake; and a different
thing still that of Plato, who maintains that virtue itself is the act
of the irascible part of the soul, and who assigns to it a place about
the breast.(6) And so circumcision will be a different thing according
to the varying opinions of those who undergo it. But on such a subject
it is unnecessary to speak on this occasion in a treatise like the
present; for whoever desires to see what led us to the subject, can
read what we have said upon it in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.
Although the Jews, then, pride themselves on circumcision, they
will separate it not only from that of the Colchians and Egyptians, but
also from that of the Arabian Ishmaelites; and yet the latter was
derived from their ancestor Abraham, the father of Ishmael, who
underwent the rite of circumcision along with his father. The Jews say
that the circumcision performed on the eighth day is the principal
circumcision, and that which is performed according to circumstances is
different; and probably it was performed on account of the hostility of
some angel towards the Jewish nation, who had the power to injure such
of them as were not circumcised, but was powerless against those who
had undergone the rite. This may be said to appear from what is written
in the book of Exodus, where the angel before the circumcision of
Eliezer(7) was able to work against(8) Moses, but could do nothing
after his son was circumcised. And when Zipporah had learned this, she
took a pebble and circumcised her child, and is recorded, according to
the reading of the common copies, to have said, "The blood of my
child's circumcision is stayed," but according to the Hebrew text, "A
bloody husband art thou to me."(9) For she had known the story about a
certain angel having power before the shedding of the blood, but who
became powerless through the blood of circumcision. For which reason
the words were addressed to Moses, "A bloody husband art thou to me."
But these things, which appear rather of a curious nature, and not
level to the comprehension of the multitude, I have ventured to treat
at such length; and now I shall only add, as becomes a Christian, one
thing more, and shall then pass on to what follows. I For this angel
might have had power, I think, over those of the people who were not
circumcised, and generally over all who worshipped only the Creator;
and this power lasted so long as Jesus had not assumed a human body.
But when He had done this, and had undergone the rite of circumcision
in His own person, all the power of the angel over those who practise
the same worship, but are not circumcised,(1) was abolished; for Jesus
reduced it to nought by (the power of) His unspeakable divinity. And
therefore His disciples are forbidden to circumcise themselves, and are
reminded (by the apostle): "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit
you nothing."(2)
But neither do the Jews pride themselves upon abstaining from
swine's flesh, as if it were some great thing; but upon their having
ascertained the nature of clean and unclean animals, and the cause of
the distinction, and of swine being classed among the unclean. And
these distinctions were signs of certain things until the advent of
Jesus; after whose coming it was said to His disciple, who did not yet
comprehend the doctrine concerning these matters, but who said,
"Nothing that is common or unclean hath entered into my mouth,"(3)
"What God hath cleansed, call not thou common." It therefore in no way
affects either the Jews or us that the Egyptian priests abstain not
only from the flesh of swine, but also from that of goats, and sheep,
and oxen, and fish. But since it is not that "which entereth into the
mouth that defiles a man," and since "meat does not commend us to
God," we do not set great store on refraining from eating, nor yet are
we induced to eat from a gluttonous appetite. And therefore, so far as
we are concerned, the followers of Pythagoras, who abstain from all
things that contain life may do as they please; only observe the
different reason for abstaining from things that have life on the part
of the Pythagoreans and our ascetics. For the former abstain on account
of the fable about the transmigration of souls, as the poet says: —
"And some one, lifting up his beloved son, Will slay him
after prayer; O how foolish he!"(4)
We, however, when we do abstain, do so because "we keep under our body, and bring it into subjection,"(5) and desire "to mortify our members that are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence;"(6) and we use every effort to "mortify the deeds of the flesh."(7)
Celsus, still expressing his opinion regarding the Jews, says:
"It is not probable that they are in great favour with God, or are
regarded by Him with more affection than others, or that angels are
sent by Him to them alone, as if to them had been allotted some region
of the blessed. For we may see both the people themselves, and the
country of which they were deemed worthy." We shall refute this, by
remarking that it is evident that this nation was in great favour with
God, from the fact that the God who presides over all things was called
the God of the Hebrews, even by those who were aliens to our faith. And
because they were in favour with God, they were not abandoned by
Him;(8) but although few in number, they continued to enjoy the
protection of the divine power, so that in the reign of Alexander of
Macedon they sustained no injury from him, although they refused, on
account of certain covenants and oaths, to take up arms against Darius.
They say that on that occasion the Jewish high priest, clothed in his
sacred robe, received obeisance from Alexander, who declared that he
had beheld an individual arrayed in this fashion, who announced to him
in his sleep that he was to be the subjugator of the whole of Asia.(9)
Accordingly, we Christians maintain that "it was the fortune of that
people in a remarkable degree to enjoy God's favour, and to be loved by
Him in a way different from others;" but that this economy of things
and this divine favour were transferred to us, after Jesus had conveyed
the power which had been manifested among the Jews to those who had
become converts to Him from among the heathen. And for this reason,
although the Romans desired to perpetrate many atrocities against the
Christians, in order to ensure their extermination, they were
unsuccessful; for there was a divine hand which fought on their behalf,
and whose desire it was that the word of God should spread from one
comer of the land of Judea throughout the whole human race.
But seeing that we have answered to the best of our ability the
charges brought by Celsus against the Jews and their doctrine, let us
proceed to consider what follows, and to prove that it is no empty
boast on our part when we make. a profession of knowing the great God,
and that we have not been led away by any juggling tricks(1) of Moses
(as Celsus imagines), or even of our own Saviour Jesus; but that for a
good end we listen to the God who speaks in Moses, and have accepted
Jesus, whom he testifies to be God, as the Son of God, in hope of
receiving the best rewards if we regulate our lives according to His
word. And we shall willingly pass over what we have already stated by
way of anticipation on the points, "whence we came and who is our
leader, and what law proceeded from Him." And if Celsus would maintain
that there is no difference between us and the Egyptians, who worship
the goat, or the ram, or the crocodile, or the ox, or the river-horse,
or the dog-faced baboon,(2) or the cat, he can ascertain if it be so,
and so may any other who thinks alike on the subject. We, however, have
to the best of our ability defended ourselves at great length in the
preceding pages on the subject of the honour which we render to our
Jesus, pointing out that we have found the better part;(3) and that in
showing that the truth which is contained in the teaching of Jesus
Christ is pure and unmixed with error, we are not commending ourselves,
but our Teacher, to whom testimony was borne through many witnesses by
the Supreme God and the prophetic writings among the Jews, and by the
very clearness of the case itself, for it is demonstrated that He could
not have accomplished such mighty works without the divine help.
But the statement of Celsus which we wish to examine at present
is the following: "Let us then pass over the refutations which might be
adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as
really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or
were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only
one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves. For
they assert that on many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of
them together, and that these became wicked, and were cast under the
earth and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the
warm springs, which are their tears; and, moreover, that there came an
angel to the tomb of this said being—according to some, indeed, one,
but according to others, two—who answered the women that he had
arisen. For the Son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the
tomb, but needed the help of another to roll away the stone. And again,
on account of the pregnancy of Mary, there came an angel to the
carpenter, and once more another angel, in order that they might take
up the young Child and flee away (into Egypt). But what need is there
to particularize everything, or to count up the number of angels said
to have been sent to Moses, and others amongst them? If, then, others
were sent, it is manifest that he also came from the same God. But he
may be supposed to have the appearance of announcing something of
greater importance (than those who preceded him), as if the Jews had
been committing sin, or corrupting their religion, or doing deeds of
impiety; for these things are obscurely hinted at."
The preceding remarks might suffice as an answer to the charges
of Celsus, so far as regards those points in which our Saviour Jesus
Christ is made the subject of special investigation. But that we may
avoid the appearance of intentionally passing over any portion of his
work, as if we were unable to meet him, let us, even at the risk of
being tautological (since we are challenged to this by Celsus),
endeavour as far as we can with all due brevity to continue our
discourse, since perhaps something either more precise or more novel
may occur to us upon the several topics. He says, indeed, that "he has
omitted the refutations which have been adduced against the claims
which Christians advance on behalf of their teacher," although he has
not omitted anything which he was able to bring forward, as is manifest
from his previous language, but makes this statement only as an empty
rhetorical device. That we are not refuted, however, on the subject of
our great Saviour, although the accuser may appear to refute us, will
be manifest to those who peruse in a spirit of truth-loving
investigation all that is predicted and recorded of Him. And, in the
next place, since he considers that he makes a concession in saying of
the Saviour, "Let him appear to be really an angel," we reply that we
do not accept of such a concession from Celsus; but we look to the work
of Him who came to visit the whole human race in His word and teaching,
as each one of His adherents was capable of receiving Him. And this was
the work of one who, as the prophecy regarding Him said, was not simply
an angel, but the "Angel of the great counsel:"(4) for He announced to
men the great counsel of the God and Father of all things regarding
them, (saying) of those who yield themselves up to a life of pure
religion, that they ascend by means of their great deeds to God; but of
those who do not adhere to Him, that they place themselves at a
distance from God, and journey on to destruction through their unbelief
of Him. He then continues: "If even the angel came to men, is he the
first and only one who came, or did others come on former occasions?"
And he thinks he can meet either of these dilemmas at great length,
although there is not a single real Christian who asserts that Christ
was the only being that visited the human race. For, as Celsus says,
"If they should say the only one," there are others who appeared to
different individuals.
In the next place, he proceeds to answer himself as he thinks fit
in the following terms: "And so he is not the only one who is recorded
to have visited the human race, as even those who, under pretext of
teaching in the name of Jesus, have apostatized from the Creator as an
inferior being, and have given in their adherence to one who is a
superior God and father of him who visited (the world), assert that
before him certain beings came from the Creator to visit the human
race." Now, as it is in the spirit of truth that we investigate all
that relates to the subject, we shall remark that it is asserted by
Apelles, the celebrated disciple of Marcion, who became the founder of
a certain sect, and who treated the writings of the Jews as fabulous,
that Jesus is the only one that came to visit the human race. Even
against him, then, who maintained that Jesus was the only one that came
from God to men, it would be in vain for Celsus to quote the statements
regarding the descent of other angels, seeing Apelles discredits, as we
have already mentioned, the miraculous narratives of the Jewish
Scriptures; and much more will he decline to admit what Celsus has
adduced, from not understanding the contents of the book of Enoch. No
one, then, convicts us of falsehood, or of making contradictory
assertions, as if we maintained both that our Saviour was the only
being that ever came to men, and yet that many others came on different
occasions. And in a most confused manner, moreover, does be adduce,
when examining the subject of the visits of angels to men, what he has
derived, without seeing its meaning, from the contents of the book of
Enoch; for he does not appear to have read the passages in question,
nor to have been aware that the books which bear the name Enoch(1) do
not at all circulate in the Churches as divine, although it is from
this source that he might be supposed to have obtained the statement,
that "sixty or seventy angels descended at the same time, who fell into
a state of wickedness."
But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of candour what he has
not discovered in the contents of the book of Genesis, that "the sons
of God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to them
wives of all whom they chose,"(2) we shall nevertheless even on this
point persuade those who are capable of understanding the meaning of
the prophet, that even before us there was one who referred this
narrative to the doctrine regarding souls, which became possessed with
a desire for the corporeal life of men, and this in metaphorical
language, he said, was termed "daughters of men." But whatever may be
the meaning of the "sons of God desiring to possess the daughters of
men," it will not at all contribute to prove that Jesus was not the
only one who visited mankind as an angel, and who manifestly became the
Saviour and benefactor of all those who depart from the flood of
wickedness. Then, mixing up and confusing whatever he had at any time
heard, or had anywhere found written—whether held to be of divine
origin among Christians or not—he adds: "The sixty or seventy who
descended together were cast under the earth, and were punished with
chains." And he quotes (as from the book of Enoch, but without naming
it) the following: "And hence it is that the tears of these angels are
warm springs,"—a thing neither mentioned nor heard of in the Churches
of God! For no one was ever so foolish as to materialize into human
tears those which were shed by the angels who had come down from
heaven. And if it were right to pass a jest upon what is advanced
against us in a serious spirit by Celsus, we might observe that no one
would ever have said that hot springs, the greater part of which are
fresh water, were the tears of the angels, since tears are saltish in
their nature, unless indeed the angels, in the opinion of Celsus, shed
tears which are fresh.
Proceeding immediately after to mix up and compare with one
another things that are dissimilar, and incapable of being united, he
subjoins to his statement regarding the sixty or seventy angels who
came down from heaven, and who, according to him, shed fountains of
warm water for tears, the following: "It is related also that there
came to the tomb of Jesus himself, according to some, two angels,
accord- ing to others, one;" having failed to notice, I think, that
Matthew and Mark speak of one, and Luke and John of two, which
statements are not contradictory. For they who mention "one," say that
it was he who rolled away the stone from the sepulchre; while they who
mention "two," refer to those who appeared in shining raiment to the
women that repaired to the sepulchre, or who were seen within sitting
in white garments. Each of these occurrences might now be demonstrated
to have actually taken place, and to be indicative of a figurative
meaning existing in these "phenomena," (and intelligible) to those who
were prepared to behold the resurrection of the Word. Such a task,
however, does not belong to our present purpose, but rather to an
exposition of the Gospel.(1)
Now, that miraculous appearances have sometimes been witnessed by
human beings, is related by the Greeks; and not only by those of them
who might be suspected of composing fabulous narratives, but also by
those who have given every evidence of being genuine philosophers, and
of having related with perfect truth what had happened to them.
Accounts of this kind we have read in the writings of Chrysippus of
Soli, and also some things of the same kind relating to Pythagoras; as
well as in some of the more recent writers who lived a very short time
ago, as in the treatise of Plutarch of Chaeronea "on the Soul," and in
the second book of the work of Numenius the Pythagorean on the
"Incorruptibility of the Soul." Now, when such accounts are related by
the Greeks, and especially by the philosophers among them, they are not
to be received with mockery and ridicule, nor to be regarded as
fictions and fables; but when those who are devoted to the God of all
things, and who endure all kinds of injury, even to death itself,
rather than allow a falsehood to escape their lips regarding God,
announce the appearances of angels which they have themselves
witnessed, they are to be deemed unworthy of belief, and their words
are not to be regarded as true! Now it is opposed to sound reason to
judge in this way whether individuals are speaking truth or falsehood.
For those who act honestly, only after a long and careful examination
into the details of a subject, slowly and cautiously express their
opinion of the veracity or falsehood of this or that person with regard
to the marvels which they may relate; since it is the case that neither
do all men
show themselves worthy of belief, nor do all make it distinctly evident that they are relating to men only fictions and fables. Moreover, regarding the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we have this remark to make, that it is not at all wonderful if, on such an occasion, either one or two angels should have appeared to announce that Jesus had risen from the dead, and to provide for the safety of those who believed in such an event to the advantage of their souls. Nor does it appear to me at all unreasonable, that those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and who manifest, as a fruit of their faith not to be lightly esteemed, their possession of a virtuous(2) life, and their withdrawal from the flood of evils, should not be unattended by angels who lend their help in accomplishing their conversion to God.
But Celsus challenges the account also that an angel rolled away
the stone from the sepulchre where the body of Jesus lay, acting like a
lad at school, who should bring a charge against any one by help of a
string of commonplaces. And, as if he had discovered some clever
objection to the narrative, he remarks: "The Son of God, then, it
appears, could not open his tomb, but required the aid of another to
roll away the stone." Now, not to overdo the discussion. of this
matter, or to have the appearance of unreasonably introducing
philosophical remarks, by explaining the figurative meaning at present,
I shall simply say of the narrative alone, that it does appear in
itself a more respectful proceeding, that the servant and inferior
should have rolled away the stone, than that such an act should have
been performed by Him whose resurrection was to be for the advantage of
mankind. I do not speak of the desire of those who conspired against
the Word, and who wished to put Him to death, and to show to all men
that He was dead and non-existent,(3) that His tomb should not be
opened, in order that no one might behold the Word alive after their
conspiracy; but the "Angel of God" who came into the world for the
salvation of men, with the help of another angel, proved more powerful
than the conspirators, and rolled away the weighty stone, that those
who deemed the Word to be dead might be convinced that He is not with
the "departed," but is alive, and precedes those who are willing to
follow Him, that He may manifest to them those truths which come after
those which He formerly showed them at the time of their first entrance
(into the school of Christianity), when they were as yet incapable of
receiving deeper instruction. In the next place, I do not understand
what advantage he thinks will accrue to his purpose when he ridicules
the account of "the angel's visit to Joseph regarding the pregnancy of
Mary;" and again, that of the angel to warn the parents "to take up the
new-born Child, whose life was in danger, and to flee with it into
Egypt." Concerning these matters, however, we have in the preceding
pages answered his statements. But what does Celsus mean by saying,
that "according to the Scriptures, angels are recorded to have been
sent to Moses, and others as well?" For it appears to me to contribute
nothing to his purpose, and especially because none of them made any
effort to accomplish, as far as in his power, the conversion of the
human race from their sins. Let it be granted, however, that other
angels were sent from God, but that he came to announce something of
greater importance (than any others who preceded him); and when the
Jews had fallen into sin, and corrupted their religion, and had done
unholy deeds, transferred the kingdom of God to other husbandmen, who
in all the Churches take special care of themselves,(1) and use every
endeavour by means of a holy life, and by a doctrine conformable
thereto, to win over to the God of all things those who would rush away
from the teaching of Jesus.(2)
Celsus then continues: "The Jews accordingly, and these (clearly
meaning the Christians), have the same God;" and as if advancing a
proposition which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the
following assertion: "It is certain, indeed, that the members of the
great Church(3) admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding
the creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz.,
concerning the six days and the seventh;" on which day, as the
Scripture says, God "ceased"(4) from His works, retiring into the
contemplation of Himself, but on which, as Celsus says (who does not
abide by the letter of the history, and who does not understand its
meaning), God "rested,"(5)—a term which is not found in the record.
With respect, however, to the creation of the world, and the "rest(6)
which is reserved after it for the people of God," the subject is
extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation. In
the next place, as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book,
and to give it an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain
statements, such as the following, relating to the first man, of whom
he says: "We give the same account. as do the Jews, and deduce the same
genealogy from him as they do." However, as regards "the conspiracies
of brothers against one another," we know of none such, save that Cain
conspired against Abel, and Esau against Jacob; but not Abel against
Cain, nor Jacob against Esau: for if this had been the case, Celsus
would have been correct in saying that we give the same accounts as do
the Jews of "the conspiracies of brothers against one another." Let it
be granted, however, that we speak of the same descent into Egypt as
they, and of their return(7) thence, which was not a "flight,"(8) as
Celsus considers it to have been, what does that avail towards founding
an accusation against us or against the Jews? Here, indeed, he thought
to cast ridicule upon us, when, in speaking of the Hebrew people, he
termed their exodus a "flight;" but when it was his business to
investigate the account of the punishments inflicted by God upon Egypt,
that topic he purposely passed by in silence.
If, however, it be necessary to express ourselves with precision
in our answer to Celsus, who thinks that we hold the same opinions on
the matters in question as do the Jews, we would say that we both agree
that the books (of Scripture) were written by the Spirit of God, but
that we do not agree about the meaning of their contents; for we do not
regulate our lives like the Jews, because we are of opinion that the
literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning
of the legislation. And we maintain, that "when Moses is read, the veil
is upon their heart,"(9) because the meaning of the law of Moses has
been concealed from those who have not welcomed(10) the way which is by
Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for "the Lord
is that Spirit"), the veil being taken away, "he beholds, as in a
mirror with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord" in those thoughts
which are concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory
becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term "face" being used
figuratively for the "understanding," as one would call it without a
figure, in which is the face of the "inner man," filled with light and
glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law.
After the above remarks he proceeds as follows: "Let no one
suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their
God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he
is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it
was from the former that the Son came," Now, if he imagine that the
existence of numerous heresies among the Christians is a ground of
accusation against Christianity, why, in a similar way, should it not
be a ground of accusation against philosophy, that the various sects of
philosophers differ from each other, not on small and indifferent
points, but upon those of the highest importance? Nay, medicine also
ought to be a subject of attack, on account of its many conflicting
schools. Let it be admitted, then, that there are amongst us some who
deny that our God is the same as that of the Jews: nevertheless, on
that account those are not to be blamed who prove from the same
Scriptures that one and the same Deity is the God of the Jews and of
the Gentiles alike, as Paul, too, distinctly says, who was a convert
from Judaism to Christianity, "I thank my God, whom I serve from my
forefathers with a pure conscience."(1) And let it be admitted also,
that there is a third class who call certain persons "carnal," and
others "spiritual,"—I think he here means the followers of
Valentinus,—yet what does this avail against us, who belong to the
Church, and who make it an accusation against such as hold that certain
natures are saved, and that others perish in consequence of their
natural constitution?(2) And let it be admitted further, that there are
some who give themselves out as Gnostics, in the same way as those
Epicureans who call themselves philosophers: yet neither will they who
annihilate the doctrine of providence be deemed true philosophers, nor
those true Christians who introduce monstrous inventions, which are
disapproved of by those who are the disciples of Jesus. Let it be
admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast
on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their
lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish
law,—and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either
acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and
maintain that He was begotten like other human beings,—what does that
avail by way of charge against such as belong to the Church, and whom
Celsus has styled "those of the multitude?"(3) He adds, also, that
certain of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl,(4) having
probably misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists.
He next pours down Upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows
of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus,
as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the
notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to
be the Son of God, but term Simon the "power" of God, regarding whom
they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if
he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which be
believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men
as Jesus was amongst the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could
comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was
able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with
His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform
the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all
things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from
Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their
name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from
a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the
contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but
have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the
opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects.
He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.
In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing
still more than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual
custom, that "there are others who have wickedly invented some being as
their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more
unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian
Antinous." And he seems to me, indeed, in touching on these matters, to
say with a certain degree of truth, that there are certain others who
have wickedly invented another demon, and who have found him to be
their lord, as they wallow about in the great darkness of their
ignorance. With respect, however, to Antinous, who is compared with our
Jesus, we shall not repeat what we have already said in the preceding
pages. "Moreover," he continues, "these persons utter against one
another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to
be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of
harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred." Now, in answer to
this, we have already said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to
be found warring against sects. We, however, who are followers of the
word of Jesus, and have exercised ourselves in thinking, and saying,
and doing what is in harmony with His words, "when reviled, bless;
being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat;"(1) and we
would not utter "all manner of things shameful to be spoken" against
those who have adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible,
use every exertion to raise them to a better condition through
adherence to the Creator alone, and lead them to perform every act as
those who will (one day) be judged. And if those who hold different
opinions will not be convinced, we observe the injunction laid down for
the treatment of such: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and
second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted,
and sinneth, being condemned of himself."(2) Moreover, we who know the
maxim, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and this also, "Blessed are the
meek," would not regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor
term those who had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers.(3)
Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the statement of the
apostle, which declares that "in the latter times some shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of
devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with
a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats,
which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them who
believe;"(4) and to have misunderstood also those who employed these
declarations of the apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines
of Christianity. And it is owing to this cause that Celsus has said
that "certain among the Christians are called 'cauterized in the ears;'
"(5) and also that some are termed "enigmas,"(6)—a term which we have
never met. The expression "stumbling-block"(7) is, indeed, of frequent
occurrence in these writings,—an appellation which we are accustomed
to apply to those who turn away simple persons, and those who are
easily deceived, from sound doctrine. But neither we, nor, I imagine,
any other, whether Christian or heretic, know of any who are styled
Sirens, who betray and deceive,(8) and stop their ears, and change into
swine those whom they delude. And yet this man, who affects to know
everything, uses such language as the following: "You may hear," he
says, "all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in
their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words,
'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.'" And this is the
only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul's
writings; and yet why should we not also employ innumerable other
quotations from the Scriptures, such as, "For though we do walk in the
flesh, we do not war after the flesh; (for the weapons of our warfare
are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of
strongholds,) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God?"(9)
But since he asserts that "you may hear all those who differ so
widely saying, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world,'"
we shall show the falsity of such a statement. For there are certain
heretical sects which do not receive the Epistles of the Apostle Paul,
as the two sects of Ebionites, and those who are termed Encratites.(10)
Those, then, who do not regard the apostle as a holy and wise man, will
not adopt his language, and say, "The world is crucified to me, and I
unto the world." And consequently in this point, too, Celsus is guilty
of falsehood. He continues, moreover, to linger over the accusations
which he brings against the diversity of sects which exist, but does
not appear to me to be accurate in the language which he employs, nor
to have carefully observed or understood how it is that those
Christians who have made progress in their studies say that they are
possessed of greater knowledge than the Jews; and also, whether they
acknowledge the same Scriptures, but interpret them differently, or
whether they do not recognise these books as divine. For we find both
of these views prevailing among the sects. He then continues: "Although
they have no foundation for the doctrine, let us examine the system
itself; and, in the first place, let us mention the corruptions which
they have made through ignorance and misunderstanding, when in the
discussion of elementary principles they express their opinions in the
most absurd manner on things which they do not understand, such as the
following." And then, to certain expressions which are continu- ally in
the mouths of the believers in Christianity, he opposes certain others
from the writings of the philosophers, with the object of making it
appear that the noble sentiments which Celsus supposes to be used by
Christians have been expressed in better and clearer language by the
philosophers, in order that he might drag away to the study of
philosophy those who are caught by opinions which at once evidence
their noble and religious character. We shall, however, here terminate
the fifth book, and begin the sixth with what follows.