This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
In the six former books we have endeavoured, reverend brother
Ambrosius, according to our ability to meet the charges brought by
Celsus against the Christians, and have as far as possible passed over
nothing without first subjecting it to a full and close examination.
And now, while we enter upon the seventh book, we call upon God through
Jesus Christ, whom Celsus accuses, that He who is the truth of God
would shed light into our hearts and scatter the darkness of error, in
accordance with that saying of the prophet which we now offer as our
prayer, "Destroy them by Thy truth."(1) For it is evidently the words
and reasonings opposed to the truth that God destroys by His truth; so
that when these are destroyed, all who are delivered from deception may
go on with the prophet to say, "I will freely sacrifice unto Thee,"(2)
and may offer to the Most High a reasonable and smokeless sacrifice.
Celsus now sets himself to combat the views of those who say that
the Jewish prophets foretold events which happened in the life of
Christ Jesus. At the outset let us refer to a notion he has, that those
who assume the existence of another God beSides the God of the jews
have no ground on which to answer his objections; while we who
recognise the same God rely for our defence on the prophecies which
were delivered concerning Jesus Christ. His words are: "Let us see how
they can raise a defence. To those who admit another God, no defence is
possible; and they who recognise the same God will always fall back
upon the same reason 'This and that must have happened.' And why?
'Because it had been predicted long before.'" To this we answer, that
the arguments recently raised by Celsus against Jesus and Christians
were so utterly feeble, that they might easily be overthrown even by
those who are impious enough to bring in another God. Indeed, were it
not dangerous to give to the weak any excuse for embracing false
notions, we could furnish the answer ourselves, and show Celsus how
unfounded is his opinion, that those who admit another God are not in a
position to meet his arguments. However, let us for the present confine
ourselves to a defence of the prophets, in continuation of what we have
said on the subject before.
Celsus goes on to say of us: "They set no value on the oracles of
the Pythian priestess, of the priests of Dodona, of Clarus, of
Branchidae, of Jupiter Ammon, and of a multitude of others; although
under their guidance we may say that colonies were sent forth, and the
whole world peopled. But those sayings which were uttered or not
uttered in Judea, after the manner of that country, as indeed they are
still delivered among the people of Phoenicia and Palestine—these they
look upon as marvellous sayings, and unchangeably true." In regard to
the oracles here enumerated, we reply that it would be possible for us
to gather from the writings of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school not
a few things to overthrow the authority of the Pythian and the other
oracles. From Epicurus also, and his followers, we could quote passages
to show that even among the Greeks themselves there were some who
utterly discredited the oracles which were recognised and admired
throughout the whole of Greece. But let it be granted that the
responses delivered by the Pythian and other oracles were not the
utterances of false men who pretended to a divine inspiration; and let
us see if, after all, we cannot convince any sincere inquirers that
there is no necessity to attribute these oracular responses to any
divinities, but that, on the other hand, they may be traced to wicked
demons—to spirits which are at enmity with the human race, and which
in this way wish to hinder the soul from rising upwards, from following
the path of virtue, and from returning to God in sincere piety. It is
said of the Pythian priestess, whose oracle seems to have been the most
celebrated, that when she sat down at the mouth of the Castalian cave,
the prophetic Spirit of Apollo entered her private parts; and when she
was filled with it, she gave utterance to responses which are regarded
with awe as divine truths. Judge by this whether that spirit does not
show its profane and impure nature, by choosing to enter the soul of
the prophetess not through the more becoming medium of the bodily pores
which are both open and invisible, but by means of what no modest man
would ever see or speak of. And this occurs not once or twice, which
would be more permissible, but as often as she was believed to receive
inspiration from Apollo. Moreover, it is not the part of a divine
spirit to drive the prophetess into such a state of ecstasy and madness
that she loses control of herself. For he who is under the influence of
the Divine Spirit ought to be the first to receive the beneficial
effects; and these ought not to be first enjoyed by the persons who
consult the oracle about the concerns of natural or civil life, or for
purposes of temporal gain or interest; and, moreover, that should be
the time of clearest perception, when a person is in close intercourse
with the Deity.
Accordingly, we can show from an examination of the sacred
Scriptures, that the Jewish prophets, who were enlightened as far as
was necessary for their prophetic work by the Spirit of God, were the
first to enjoy the benefit of the inspiration; and by the contact—if I
may so say—of the Holy Spirit they became clearer in mind, and their
souls were filled with a brighter light. And the body no longer served
as a hindrance to a virtuous life; for to that which we call "the lust
of the flesh" it was deadened. For we are persuaded that the Divine
Spirit "mortifies the deeds of the body," and destroys that enmity
against God which the carnal passions serve to excite. If, then, the
Pythian priestess is beside herself when she prophesies, what spirit
must that be which fills her mind and clouds her judgment with
darkness, unless it be of the same order with those demons which many
Christians cast out of persons possessed with them? And this, we may
observe, they do without the use of any curious arts of magic, or
incantations, but merely by prayer and simple adjurations which the
plainest person can use. Because for the most part it is unlettered
persons who perform this work; thus making manifest the grace which is
in the word of Christ, and the despicable weakness of demons, which, in
order to be overcome and driven out of the bodies and souls of men, do
not require the power and wisdom of those who are mighty in argument,
and most learned in matters of faith.(1)
Moreover, if it is believed not only among Christians and Jews,
but also by many others among the Greeks and Barbarians, that the human
soul lives and subsists after its separation from the body; and if
reason supports the idea that pure souls which are not weighed down
with sin as with a weight of lead ascend on high to the region of purer
and more ethereal bodies, leaving here below their grosser bodies along
with their impurities; whereas souls that are polluted and dragged down
to the earth by their sins, so that they are unable even to breathe
upwards, wander hither and thither, at some times about sepulchres,
where they appear as the apparitions of shadowy spirits, at others
among other objects on the ground;—if this is so, what are we to think
of those spirits that are attached for entire ages, as I may say, to
particular dwellings and places, whether by a sort of magical force or
by their own natural wickedness? Are we not compelled by reason to set
down as evil such spirits as employ the power of prophesying—a power
in itself neither good nor bad -for the purpose of deceiving men, and
thus turn them away from God, and from the purity of His service? It is
moreover evident that this is their character, when we add that they
delight in the blood of victims, and in the smoke odour of sacrifices,
and that they feed their bodies on these, and that they take pleasure
in such haunts as these, as though they sought in them the sustenance
of their lives; in this resembling those depraved men who despise the
purity of a life apart from the senses, and who have no inclination
except for the pleasures of the body, and for that earthly and bodily
life in which these pleasures are found. If the Delphian Apollo were a
god, as the Greeks suppose, would he not rather have chosen as his
prophet some wise man? or if such an one was not to be found, then one
who was endeavouring to become wise How came he not to prefer a man to
a woman for the utterance of his prophesies? And if he preferred the
latter sex, as though he could only find pleasure in the breast of a
woman, why did he not choose among women a virgin to interpret his will?
But no; the Pythian, so much admired among the Greeks, judged no
wise man, nay, no man at all, worthy of the divine possession, as they
call it. And among women he did not choose a virgin, or one recommended
by her wisdom, or by her attainments in philosophy; but he selects a
common woman. Perhaps the better class of men were too good to become
the subjects of the inspiration. Besides, if he were a god, he should
have employed his prophetic power as a bait, so to speak, with which he
might draw men to a change of life, and to the practice of virtue. But
history nowhere makes mention of anything of the kind. For if the
oracle did call Socrates the wisest of all men, it takes from the value
of that eulogy by what is said in regard to Euripides and Sophocles.
The words are:—
"Sophocles is wise, and Euripides is wiser,
But wiser than all men is Socrates."(1)
As, then, he gives the designation "wise" to the tragic poets, it is not on account of his philosophy that he holds up Socrates to veneration, or because of his love of truth and virtue. It is poor praise of Socrates to say that he prefers him to men who for a paltry reward compete upon the stage, and who by their representations excite the spectators at one time to tears and grief, and at another to unseemly laughter (for such is the intention of the satyric drama). And perhaps it was not so much in regard to his philosophy that he called Socrates the wisest of all men, as on account of the victims which he sacrificed to him and the other demons. For it seems that the demons pay more regard in distributing their favours to the sacrifices which are offered them than to deeds of virtue. Accordingly, Homer, the best of the poets, who describes what usually took place, when, wishing to show us what most influenced the demons to grant an answer to the wishes of their votaries, introduces Chryses, who, for a few garlands and the 'thighs of bulls and goats, obtained an answer to his prayers for his daughter Chryseis, so that the Greeks were driven by a pestilence to restore her back to him. And I remember reading in the book of a certain Pythagorean, when writing on the hidden meanings in that poet, that the prayer of Chryses to Apollo, and the plague which Apollo afterwards sent upon the Greeks, are proofs that Homer knew of certain evil demons who delight in the smoke of sacrifices, and who, to reward those who offer them, grant in answer to their prayers the destruction of others. "He," that is, Jupiter, "who rules over wintry Dodona, where his prophets have ever unwashed feet, and sleep upon the ground,"(2) has rejected the male sex, and, as Celsus observes, employs the women of Dodona for the prophetic office. Granting that there are oracles
similar to these, as that at Clarus, another in Branchidae, another in the temple of Jupiter Ammon, or anywhere else; yet how shall it be proved that these are gods, and not demons?
In regard to the prophets among the Jews, some of them were wise
men before they became divinely inspired prophets, while others became
wise by the illumination which their minds received when divinely
inspired. They were selected by Divine Providence to receive the Divine
Spirit, and to be the depositaries of His holy oracles, on the ground
of their leading a life of almost unapproachable excellence, intrepid,
noble, unmoved by danger or death. For reason teaches that such ought
to be the character of the prophets of the Most High, in comparison
with which the firmness of Antisthenes, Crates, and Diogenes will seem
but as child's play. It was therefore for their firm adherence to
truth, and their faithfulness in the reproof of the wicked, that "they
were stoned; they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the
sword; they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being
destitute, afflicted, tormented; they wandered in deserts and in
mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth, of whom the world was
not worthy:"(3) for they looked always to God and to His blessings,
which, being invisible, and not to be perceived by the senses, are
eternal. We have the history of the life of each of the prophets; but
it will be enough at present to direct attention to the life of Moses,
whose prophecies are contained in the law; to that of Jeremiah, as it
is given in the book which bears his name; to that of Isaiah, who with
unexampled austerity walked naked and barefooted for the space of three
years.(4) Read and consider the severe life of those children, Daniel
and his companions, how they abstained from flesh, and lived on water
and pulse.(5) Or if you will go back to more remote times, think of the
life of Noah, who prophesied;(6) and of Isaac, who gave his son a
prophetic blessing; or of Jacob, who addressed each of his twelve sons,
beginning with "Come, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the
last days."(7) These, and a multitude of others, prophesying on behalf
of God, foretold events relating to Jesus Christ. We therefore for this
reason set at nought the oracles of the Pythian priestess, or those
delivered at Dodona, at Clarus, at Branchidae, at the temple of Jupiter
Ammon, or by a multitude of other so-called prophets; whilst we regard
with reverent awe the Jewish prophets: for we see that the noble,
earnest, and devout lives of these men were worthy of the inspiration
of the Divine Spirit, whose wonderful effects were widely different
from the divination of demons.
I do not know what led Celsus, when saying, "But what things were
spoken or not spoken in the land of Judea, according to the custom of
the country," to use the words "or not spoken," as though implying that
he was incredulous, and that he suspected that those things which were
written were never spoken. In fact, he is unacquainted with these
times; and he does not know that those prophets who foretold the coming
of Christ, predicted a multitude of other events many years beforehand.
He adds, with the view of casting a slight upon the ancient prophets,
that "they prophesied in the same way as we find them still doing among
the inhabitants of Phoenicia and Palestine." But he does not tell us
whether he refers to persons who are of different principles from those
of the Jews and Christians, or to persons whose prophecies are of the
same character as those of the Jewish prophets. However it be, his
statement is false, taken in either way. For never have any of those
who have not embraced our faith done any thing approaching to what was
done by the ancient prophets; and in more recent times, since the
coming of Christ, no prophets have arisen among the Jews, who have
confessedly been abandoned by the Holy Spirit on account of their
impiety towards God, and towards Him of whom their prophets spoke.
Moreover, the Holy Spirit gave signs of His presence at the beginning
of Christ's ministry, and after His ascension He gave still more; but
since that time these signs have diminished, although there are still
traces of His presence in a few who have had their souls purified by
the Gospel, and their actions regulated by its influence. "For the holy
Spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that
are without understanding."(1)
But as Celsus promises to give an account of the manner in which
prophecies are delivered in Phoenicia and Palestine, speaking as though
it were a matter with which he had a full and personal acquaintance,
let us see what he has to say on the subject. First he lays it down
that there arc several kinds of prophecies, but he does not specify
what they arc; indeed, he could not do so, and the statement is a piece
of pure ostentation. However, let us see what he considers
the most perfect kind of prophecy among these nations. "There are many," he says, "who, although of no name, with the greatest facility and on the slightest occasion, whether within or without temples, assume the motions and gestures of inspired persons; while others do it in cities or among armies, for the purpose of attracting attention and exciting surprise. These are accustomed to say, each for himself, 'I am God; I am the Son of God; or, I am the Divine Spirit; I have come because the world is perishing, and you, O men, are perishing for your iniquities. But I wish to save you, and you shall see me returning again with heavenly power. Blessed is he who now does me homage. On all the rest I will send down eternal fire, both on cities and on countries. And those who know not the punishments which await. them shall repent and grieve in vain; while those who are faithful to me I will preserve eternally.'" Then he goes on to say: "To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own purposes."
But if he were dealing honestly in his accusations, he ought to
have given the exact terms of the prophecies, whether those in which
the speaker is introduced as claiming to be God Almighty, or those in
which the Son of God speaks, or finally those under the name of the
Holy Spirit. For thus he might have endeavoured to overthrow these
assertions, and have shown that there was no divine inspiration in
those words which urged men to forsake their sins, which condemned the
past and foretold the future. For the prophecies were recorded and
preserved by men living at the time, that those who came after might
read and admire them as the oracles of God, and that they might profit
not only by the warnings and admonitions, but also by the predictions,
which, being shown by events to have proceeded from the Spirit of God,
bind men to the practice of piety as set forth in the law and the
prophets. The prophets have therefore, as God commanded them, declared
with all plainness those things which it was desirable that the hearers
should understand at once for the regulation of their conduct; while in
regard to deeper and more mysterious subjects, which lay beyond the
reach of the common understanding, they set them forth in the form of
enigmas and allegories, or of what are called dark sayings, parables,
or similitudes. And this plan they have followed, that those who are
ready to shun no labour and spare no pains in their endeavours after
truth and virtue might search into their meaning, and having found it,
might apply it as reason requires. But Celsus, ever vigorous in his
denunciations, as though he were angry at his inability to understand
the language of the prophets, scoffs at them thus: "To these grand
promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words,
of which no rational person can find the meaning; for so dark are they
as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or
impostor to apply them so as to suit his own purposes." This statement
of Celsus seems ingeniously designed to dissuade readers from
attempting any inquiry or careful search into their meaning. And in
this he is not unlike certain persons, who said to a man whom a prophet
had visited to announce future events, "Wherefore came this mad fellow
to thee?"(1)
I am convinced, indeed, that much better arguments could be
adduced than any I have been able to bring forward, to show the
falsehood of these allegations of Celsus, and to set forth the divine
inspiration of the prophecies; but we have according to our ability, in
our commentaries on Isaiah, Ezekiel, and some of the twelve minor
prophets, explained literally and in detail what he calls "those
fanatical and utterly unintelligible passages."(2) And if God give us
grace in the time that He appoints for us, to advance in the knowledge
of His word, we shall continue our investigation into the parts which
remain, or into such at least as we are able to make plain. And other
persons of intelligence who wish to study Scripture may also find out
its meaning for themselves; for although there are many places in which
the meaning is not obvious, yet there are none where, as Celsus
affirms, "there is no sense at all." Neither is it true that "any fool
or impostor can explain the passages so as to make them suit his own
purposes." For it belongs only to those who are wise in the truth of
Christ (and to all them it does belong) to unfold the connection and
meaning of even the obscure parts of prophecy, "comparing spiritual
things with spiritual," and interpreting each passage according to the
usage of Scripture writers. And Celsus is not to be believed when he
says that he has heard such men prophesy; for no prophets bearing any
resemblance to the ancient prophets have appeared in the time of
Celsus. If there had been any, those who heard and admired them would
have followed the example of the ancients, and have recorded the
prophecies in writing. And it seems quite clear that Celsus is speaking
falsely, when he says that "those prophets whom he had heard, on being
pressed by him, confessed their true motives, and acknowledged that the
ambiguous words they used really meant nothing." He ought to have given
the names of those whom he says he had heard, if he had any to give, so
that those who were competent to judge might decide whether his
allegations were true or false.
He thinks, besides, that those who support the cause of Christ by
a reference to the writings of the prophets can give no proper answer
in regard to statements in them which attribute to God that which is
wicked, shameful, or impure; and assuming that no answer can be given,
he proceeds to draw a whole train of inferences, none of which can be
allowed. But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to
the teaching of sacred Scripture understand the saying, "The knowledge
of the unwise is as talk without sense,"(3) and have learnt "to be
ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh us a reason for
the hope that is in us."(4) And they are not satisfied with affirming
that such and such things have been predicted; but they endeavour to
remove any apparent inconsistencies, and to show that, so far from
there being anything evil, shameful, or impure in these predictions,
everything is worthy of being received by those who understand the
sacred Scriptures. But Celsus ought to have adduced from the prophets
examples of what he thought bad, or shameful, or impure, if he saw any
such passages; for then his argument would have had much more force,
and would have furthered his purpose much better. He gives no
instances, however, but contents himself with loudly asserting the
false charge that these things are to be found in Scripture. There is
no reason, then, for us to defend ourselves against groundless charges,
which are but empty sounds, or to take the trouble of showing that in
the writings of the prophets there is nothing evil, shameful, impure,
or abominable.
And there is no truth in the statement of Celsus, that "God does
the most shameless deeds, or suffers the most shameless sufferings"
or that "He favours the commission of evil; for whatever he may say, no such things have ever been foretold. He ought to have cited from the prophets the passages in which God is represented as favouring evil, or as doing and enduring the most shameless deeds, and not to have sought without foundation to prejudice the minds of his readers. The prophets, indeed, foretold what Christ should suffer, and set forth the reason why He should suffer. God therefore also knew what Christ would suffer; but where has he learnt that those things which the Christ of God should suffer were most base and dishonourable? He goes on to explain what those most shameful and degrading things were which Christ suffered, in these words: "For what better was it for God to eat the flesh of sheep, or to drink vinegar and gall, than to feed on filth?" But God, according to us, did not eat the flesh of sheep; and while it may seem that Jesus ate, He did so only as possessing a body. But in regard to the vinegar and gall mentioned in the prophecy, "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,"(1) we have already referred(2) to this point; and as Celsus compels us to recur to it again, we would only say further, that those who resist the word of truth do ever offer to Christ the Son of God the gall of their own wickedness, and the vinegar of their evil inclinations; but though He tastes of it, yet He will not drink it.
In the next place, wishing to shake the faith of those who
believe in Jesus on the ground of the prophecies which were delivered
in regard to Him, Celsus says: "But pray, if the prophets foretold that
the great God—not to put it more harshly—would become a slave, or
become sick or die; would there be therefore any necessity that God
should die, or suffer sickness, or become a slave, simply because such
things had been foretold? Must he die in order to prove his divinity?
But the prophets never would utter predictions so wicked and impious.
We need not therefore inquire whether a thing has been predicted or
not, but whether the thing is honourable in itself, and worthy of God.
In that which is evil and base, although it seemed that all men in the
world had foretold it in a fit of madness, we must not believe. How
then can the pious mind admit that those things which are said to have
happened to him, could have happened to one who is God?" From this it
is plain that Celsus feels the argument from prophecy to be very
effective for convincing those to whom Christ is preached; but he seems
to endeavour to overthrow it by an opposite probability, namely," that
the question is not whether the prophets uttered these predictions or
not." But if he wished to reason justly and without evasion, he ought
rather to have said, "We must show that these things were never
predicted, or that those things which were predicted of Christ have
never been fulfilled in him," and in that way he would have established
the position which he holds. In that way it would have been made plain
what those prophecies are which we apply to Jesus, and how Celsus could
justify himself in asserting that that application was false. And we
should thus have seen whether he fairly disproved all that we bring
from the prophets in behalf of Jesus, or whether he himself is
convicted of a shameless endeavour to resist the plainest truths by
violent assertions.
After assuming that some things were foretold which are
impossible in themselves, and inconsistent with the character of God,
he says: "If these things were predicted of the Most High God, are we
bound to believe them of God simply because they were predicted?" And
thus he thinks he proves, that although the prophets may have foretold
truly such things of the Son of God, yet it is impossible for us to
believe in those prophecies declaring that He would do or suffer such
things. To this our answer is that the supposition is absurd, for it
combines two lines of reasoning which are opposed to each other, and
therefore mutually destructive. This may be shown as follows. The one
argument is: "If any true prophets of the Most High say that God will
become a slave, or suffer sickness, or die, these things will come to
God; for it is impossible that the prophets of the great God should
utter lies." The other is: "If even true prophets of the Most High God
say that these same things shall come to pass, seeing that these things
foretold are by the nature of things impossible, the prophecies are not
true, and therefore those things which have been foretold will not
happen to God." When, then, we find two processes of reasoning in both
of which the major premiss is the same, leading to two contradictory
conclusions, we use the form of argument called "the theorem of two
propositions,"(3) to prove that the major premiss is false, which in
the case before us is this, "that the prophets have foretold that the
great God should become a slave, suffer sickness, or die." We conclude,
then, that the prophets never foretold such things; and the argument is
formally expressed as follows: 1st, Of two things, if the first is
true, the second is true; 2d, if the first is(4) true, the second is
not true, therefore the first is not true. The concrete example which
the Stoics give to illustrate this form of argument is the following:
1st, If you know that you are dead, you are dead; 2d, if you know that
you are dead, you are not dead. And the conclusion is—"you do not know
that you are dead." These propositions are worked out as follows: If
you know that you are dead, that which you know is certain; therefore
you are dead. Again, if you know that you are dead, your death is an
object of knowledge; but as the dead know nothing, your knowing this
proves that you are not dead. Accordingly, by joining the two arguments
together, you arrive at the conclusion—"you do not know that you are
dead." Now the hypothesis of Celsus which we have given above is much
of the same kind.
But besides, the prophecies which he introduces into his argument
are very different from what the prophets actually foretold of Jesus
Christ. For the prophecies do not foretell that God will be crucified,
when they say of Him who should suffer, "We beheld Him, and He had no
form or comeliness; but His form was dishonoured and marred more than
the sons of men; He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with
grief."(1) Observe, then, how distinctly they say that it was a man who
should endure these human sufferings. And Jesus Himself, who knew
perfectly that one who was to die must be a man, said to His accusers:
"But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath spoken unto you the truth
which I heard of God."(2) And if in that man as He appeared among men
there was something divine, namely the only-begotten Son of God, the
first-born of all creation, one who said of Himself, "I am the truth,"
"I am the life," "I am the door," "I am the way," "I am the living
bread which came down from heaven," of this Being and His nature we
must judge and reason in a way quite different from that in which we
judge of the man who was seen in Jesus Christ. Accordingly, you will
find no Christian, however simple he may be, and however little versed
in critical studies, who would say that He who died was "the truth,"
"the life," "the way," "the living bread which came down from heaven,"
"the resurrection;" for it was He who appeared to us in the form of the
man Jesus, who taught us, saying, "I am the resurrection." There is no
one amongst us, I say, so extravagant as to affirm "the Life died,"
"the Resurrection died." The supposition of Celsus would have some
foundation if we were to say that it had been foretold by the prophets
that death would befall God the Word, the Truth, the Life, the
Resurrection, or any other name which is assumed by the Son of God.
In one point alone is Celsus correct in his statements on this
subject. It is that in which he says: "The prophets would not foretell
this, because it involves that which is wicked and impious,"—namely,
that the great God should become a slave or suffer death. But that
which is predicted by the prophets is worthy of God, that He who is the
brightness and express image of the divine nature should come into the
world with the holy human soul which was to animate the body of Jesus,
to sow the seed of His word, which might bring all who received and
cherished it into union with the Most High God, and which would lead to
perfect blessedness all those who felt within them the power of God the
Word, who was to be in the body and soul of a man. He was to be in it
indeed, but not in such a way as to confine therein all the rays of His
glory; and we are not to suppose that the light of Him who is God the
Word is shed forth in no other way than in this. If, then, we consider
Jesus in relation to the divinity that was in Him, the things which He
did in this capacity present nothing to offend our ideas of God,
nothing but what is holy; and if we consider Him as man, distinguished
beyond all other men by an intimate communion with the Eternal Word,
with absolute Wisdom, He suffered as one who was wise and perfect,
whatever it behoved Him to suffer who did all for the good of the human
race, yea, even for the good of all intelligent beings. And there is
nothing absurd in a man having died, and in His death being not only an
example of death endured for the sake of piety, but also the first blow
in the conflict which is to overthrow the power of that evil spirit the
devil, who had obtained dominion over the whole world.(3) For we have
signs and pledges of the destruction of his empire, in those who
through the coming of Christ are everywhere escaping from the power of
demons, and who, after their deliverance from this bondage in which
they were held, consecrate themselves to God, and earnestly devote
themselves day by day to advancement in a life of piety.
Celsus adds: "Will they not besides make this reflection? If the
prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into
the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them
through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the
earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy
them utterly, which indeed he himself did—as Moses says—threatening
them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat
them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man
of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite op- posed to these, declaring that
no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory;
that men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the
ravens; that they were to be less concerned about their raiment than
the lilies; that to him who has given them one blow, they should offer
to receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely?
Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had
given to Moses? Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and
send forth a messenger with counter instructions?" Celsus, with all his
boasts of universal knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of
errors, in supposing that in the law and the prophets there is not a
meaning deeper than that afforded by a literal rendering of the words.
He does not see how manifestly incredible it is that worldly riches
should be promised to those who lead upright lives, when it is a matter
of common observation that the best of men have lived in extreme
poverty. Indeed, the prophets themselves, who for the purity of their
lives received the Divine Spirit, "wandered about in sheepskins and
goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented: they wandered in
deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth."(1) For,
as the Psalmist, says, "many are the afflictions of the righteous."(2)
If Celsus had read the writings of Moses, he would, I daresay, have
supposed that when it is said to him who kept the law, "Thou shalt lend
unto many nations, and thou thyself shalt not borrow,"(3) the promise
is made to the just man, that his temporal riches should be so
abundant, that he would be able to lend not only to the Jews, not only
to two or three nations, but "to many nations." What, then, must have
been the wealth which the just man received according to the law for
his righteousness, if he could lend to many nations? And must we not
suppose also, in accordance with this interpretation, that the just man
would never borrow anything? For it is written, "and thou shalt thyself
borrow nothing." Did then that nation remain for so long a period
attached to the religion which was taught by Moses, whilst, according
to the supposition of Celsus, they saw themselves so grievously
deceived by that lawgiver? For nowhere is it said of any one that he
was so rich as to lend to many nations. It is not to be believed that
they would have fought so zealously in defence of a law whose promises
had proved glaringly false, if they understood them in the sense which
Celsus gives to them. And if any one should say that the sins which are
recorded to have been committed by the people are a proof that they
despised the law, doubtless from the feeling that they had been
deceived by it, we may reply that we have only to read the history of
the times in order to find it shown that the whole people, after having
done that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, returned afterwards
to their duty, and to the religion prescribed by the law.
Now if these words in the law, "Thou shalt have dominion over
many nations, and no one shall rule over thee," were simply a promise
to them of dominion, and if they contain no deeper meaning than this,
then it is certain that the people would have had still stronger
grounds for despising the promises of the law. Celsus brings forward
another passage, although he changes the terms of it, where it is said
that the whole earth shall be filled with the Hebrew race; which
indeed, according to the testimony of history, did actually happen
after the coming of Christ, although rather as a result of God's anger,
if I may so say, than of His blessing. As to the promise made to the
Jews that they should slay their enemies, it may be answered that any
one who examines carefully into the meaning of this passage will find
himself unable to interpret it literally. It is sufficient at present
to refer to the manner in which in the Psalms the just man is
represented as saying, among other things, "Every morning will I
destroy the wicked of the land; that I may cut off all workers of
iniquity from the city of Jehovah."(4) Judge, then, from the words and
spirit of the speaker, whether it is conceivable that, after having in
the preceding part of the Psalm, as any one may read for himself,
uttered the noblest thoughts and purposes, he should in the sequel,
according to the literal rendering of his words, say that in the
morning, and at no other period of the day, he would destroy all
sinners from the earth, and leave none of them alive, and that he would
slay every one in Jerusalem who did iniquity. And there are many
similar expressions to be found in the law, as this, for example: "We
left not anything alive."(5)
Celsus adds, that it was foretold to the Jews, that if they did
not obey the law, they would be treated in the same way as they treated
their enemies; and then he quotes from the teaching of Christ some
precepts which he considers contrary to those of the law, and uses that
as an argument against us. But before proceeding to this point, we must
speak of that which precedes. We hold, then, that the law has a twofold
sense, —the one literal, the other spiritual,—as has been shown by
some before us. Of the first or literal sense it is said, not by us,
but by God, speaking in one of the prophets, that "the statutes are not
good, and the judgments not good;"(1) whereas, taken in a spiritual
sense, the same prophet makes God say that "His statutes are good, and
His judgments good." Yet evidently the prophet is not saying things
which are contradictory of each other. Paul in like manner says, that
"the letter killeth, and the spirit giveth life,"(2) meaning by "the
letter" the literal sense, and by "the spirit" the spiritual sense of
Scripture. We may therefore find in Paul, as well as in the prophet,
apparent contradictions. Indeed, if Ezekiel says in one place, "I gave
them commandments which were not good, and judgments whereby they
should not live," and in another, "I gave them good commandments and
judgments, which if a man shall do, he shall live by them,"(3) Paul in
like manner, when he wishes to disparage the law taken literally, says,
"If the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was
glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold
the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to
be done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather
glorious?"(4) But when in another place he wishes to praise and
recommend the law, he calls it "spiritual," and says, "We know that the
law is spiritual;" and, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment
holy, and just, and good."(5)
When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just,
Celsus may follow the letter which killeth, and understand it of
worldly riches, which blind men; but we say that it refers to those
riches which enlighten the eyes, and which enrich a man "in all
utterance and in all knowledge." And in this sense we "charge them that
are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in
uncertain riches but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things
to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to
distribute, willing to communicate."(6) For, as Solomon says, "riches"
are the true good, which "are the ransom of the life of a man;" but the
poverty which is the opposite of these riches is destructive, for by it
"the poor cannot bear rebuke."(7) And what has been said of riches
applies to dominion, in regard to which it is said, "The just man shall
chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight."(8) Now if riches
are to be taken in the sense we have just explained, consider if it is
not according to God's promise that he who is rich in all utterance, in
all knowledge, in all wisdom, in all good works, may not out of these
treasures of utterance, of wisdom, and of knowledge, lend to many
nations. It was thus that Paul lent to all the nations that he visited,
"carrying the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, and round about unto
Illyricum."(9) And as the divine knowledge was given to him by
revelation, and his mind was illumined by the Divine Word, he himself
therefore needed to borrow from no one, and required not the ministry
to any man to teach him the word of truth. Thus, as it had been
written, "Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall
not have dominion over thee," he ruled over the Gentiles whom he
brought under the teaching Of Jesus Christ; and he never "gave place by
subjection to men, no, not for an hour,(10) as being himself mightier
than they. And thus also he "filled the earth."
If I must now explain how the just man "slays his enemies," and
prevails everywhere, it is to be observed that, when he says, "Every
morning will I destroy the wicked of the land, that I may cut off all
workers of iniquity from the city of Jehovah," by "the land" he means
the flesh whose lusts are at enmity with God; and by "the city of
Jehovah" he designates his own soul, in which was the temple of God,
containing the true idea and conception of God, which makes it to be
admired by all who look upon it. As soon, then, as the rays of the Sun
of righteousness shine into his soul, feeling strengthened and
invigorated by their influence, he sets himself to destroy all the
lusts of the flesh, which are called "the wicked of the land," and
drives out of that city of the Lord which is in his soul all thoughts
which work iniquity, and all suggestions which are opposed to the
truth. And in this way also the just give up to destruction all their
enemies, which are their vices, so that they do not spare even the
children, that is, the early beginnings and promptings of evil. In this
sense also we understand the language of the 137th Psalm: "O daughter
of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth
thee as thou hast served us: happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth
thy little ones against the stones."(11) For "the little ones" of
Babylon (which signifies confusion) are those troublesome sinful
thoughts which arise in the soul and he who subdues them by striking,
as it were, their heads against the firm and solid strength of reason
and truth, is the man who "dasheth the little ones against the stones;"
and he is therefore truly blessed. God may therefore have commanded men
to destroy all their vices utterly, even at their birth, without having
enjoined anything contrary to the teaching of Christ; and He may
Himself have destroyed before the eyes of those who were "Jews
inwardly"(1) all the offspring of evil as His enemies. And, in like
manner, those who disobey the law and word of God may well be compared
to His enemies led astray by sin; and they may well be said to suffer
the same fate as they deserve who have proved traitors to the truth of
God.
From what has been said, it is clear then that Jesus, "the man of
Nazareth," did not promulgate laws opposed to those just considered in
regard to riches, when He said, "It is hard for the rich man to enter
into the kingdom of God;''(2) whether we take the word "rich" in its
simplest sense, as referring to the man whose mind is distracted by his
wealth, and, as it were, entangled with thorns, so that he brings forth
no spiritual fruit; or whether it is the man who is rich in the sense
of abounding in false notions, of whom it is written in the Proverbs,
"Better is the poor man who is just, than the rich man who is
false."(3) Perhaps it is the following passages which have led Celsus
to suppose that Jesus forbids ambition to His disciples: "Whoever of
you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all;"(4) "The princes of
the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,"(5) and "they that exercise
authority upon them are called benefactors."(6) But there is nothing
here inconsistent with the promise, "Thou shalt rule over many nations,
and they shall not rule over thee," especially after the explanation
which we have given of these words. Celsus next throws in an expression
in regard to wisdom, as though he thought that, according to the
teaching of Christ, no wise man could come to the Father. But we would
ask in what sense he speaks of a wise man. For if he means one who is
wise in "the wisdom of this world," as it is called, "which is
foolishness with God,"(7) then we would agree with him in saying that
access to the Father is denied to one who is wise in that sense. But if
by wisdom any one means Christ, who is "the power and wisdom of God,"
far from such a wise man being refused access to the Father, we hold
that he who is adorned by the Holy Spirit with that gift which is
called "the word of wisdom," far excels all those who have not received
the same grace.
The pursuit of human glory, we maintain, is forbidden not only by
the teaching of Jesus, but also by the Old Testament. Accordingly we
find one of the prophets, when imprecating upon himself certain
punishments for the commission of certain sins, includes among the
punishments this one of earthly glory. He says, "O Lord my God, if I
have done this; if there be iniquity in my hands; if I have rewarded
evil unto him that was at peace with me; (yea, rather, I have delivered
him that without cause is mine enemy;) let the enemy persecute my soul,
and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth, and set my
glory up an high."(8) And these precepts of our Lord, "Take no thought
what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink. Behold the fowls of the air,
or behold the ravens: for they sow not, neither do they reap; yet your
heavenly Father feedeth them. How much better are ye than they! And why
take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the
field;"(9)—these precepts, and those which follow, are not
inconsistent with the promised blessings of the law, which teaches that
the just "shall eat their bread to the full;(10) nor with that saying
of Solomon, "The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul, but
the belly of the wicked shall want."(11) For we must consider the food
promised in the law as the food of the soul, which is to satisfy not
both parts of man's nature, but the soul only. And the words of the
Gospel, although probably containing a deeper meaning, may yet be taken
in their more simple and obvious sense. as teaching us not to be
disturbed with anxieties about our food and clothing, but, while living
in plainness, and desiring only what is needful, to put our trust in
the providence of God.
Celsus then extracts from the Gospel the precept, "To him who
strikes thee once, thou shalt offer thyself to be struck again,"
although without giving any passage from the Old Testament which he
considers opposed to it. On the one hand, we know that "it was said to
them in old time, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;"(1) and
on the other, we have read, "I say unto you, Whoever shall smite thee
on the one cheek, turn to him the other also."(2) But as there is
reason to believe that Celsus produces the objections which he has
heard from those who wish to make a difference between the God of the
Gospel and the God of the law, we must say in reply, that this precept,
"Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other,"
is not unknown in the older Scriptures. For thus, in the Lamentations
of Jeremiah, it is said, "It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in
his youth: he sitteth alone, and keepeth silence, because he hath borne
it upon him. He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him; he is filled
full with reproach."(3) There is no discrepancy, then, between the God
of the Gospel and the God of the law, even when we take literally the
precept regarding the blow on the face. So, then, we infer that neither
"Jesus nor Moses has taught falsely." The Father in sending Jesus did
not "forget the commands which He had given to Moses:" He did not
"change His mind, condemn His own laws, and send by His messenger
counter instructions."
However, if we must refer briefly to the difference between the
constitution which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that
which the Christians, under the direction of Christ's teaching, wish
now to establish, we would observe that it must be impossible for the
legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of
the Gentiles, and with their subjection to the Roman government; and on
the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their
civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the Gospel.
For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or
stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were
therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments; since the Jews
themselves, however desirous of carrying out their law, are not able to
inflict these. punishments. But in the case of the ancient Jews, who
had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the
right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country,
of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or
others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to
sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for
their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from
resisting the enemy. And that same providence which of old gave the
law, and has now given the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing the
Jewish state to continue longer, has destroyed their city and their
temple: it has abolished the worship which was offered to God in that
temple by the sacrifice of victims, and other ceremonies which He had
prescribed. And as it has destroyed these things, not wishing that they
should longer continue, in like manner it has extended day by day the
Christian religion, so that it is now preached everywhere with
boldness, and that in spite of the numerous obstacles which oppose the
spread of Christ's teaching in the world. But since it was the purpose
of God that the nations should receive the benefits of Christ's
teaching, all the devices of men against Christians have been brought
to sought; for the more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have
persecuted them everywhere, the more have they increased in number and
grown in strength.
After this Celsus relates at length opinions which he ascribes to
us, but which we do not hold, regarding the Divine Being, to the effect
that "he is corporeal in his nature, and possesses a body like a man."
As he undertakes to refute opinions which are none of ours, it would be
needless to give either the opinions themselves or their refutation.
Indeed, if we did hold those views of God which he ascribes to us, and
which he opposes, we would be bound to quote his words, to adduce our
own arguments, and to refute his. But if he brings forward opinions
which he has either heard from no one, or if it be assumed that he has
heard them, it must have been from those who are very simple and
ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, then we need not undertake so
superfluous a task as that of refuting them. For the Scriptures plainly
speak of God as of a being without body. Hence it is said, "No man hath
seen God at any time;"(4) and the First-born of all creation is called
"the image of the invisible God,"s which is the same as if it were said
that He is incorporeal. However, we have already said something on the
nature of God while examining into the meaning of the words, "God is a
Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in
truth."
After thus misrepresenting our views of the nature of God, Celsus
goes on to ask of us "where we hope to go after death;" and he makes
our answer to be, "to another land better than this." On this he
comments as follows: "The divine men of a former age have spoken of a
happy life reserved for the souls of the blessed. Some designated it
'the isles of the blest,' and others 'the Elysian plain,' so called
because they were there to be delivered from their present evils. Thus
Homer says: 'But the gods shall send thee to the Elysian plain, on the
borders of the earth, where they lead a most quiet life.'(1) Plato
also, who believed in the immortality of the soul, distinctly gives the
name 'land' to the place where it is sent. 'The extent of it,' a says
he, 'is immense, and we only occupy a small portion of it, from the
Phasis to the Pillars of Hercules, where we dwell along the shores of
the sea, as grasshoppers and frogs beside a marsh. But there are many
other places inhabited in like manner by other men. For there are in
different parts of the earth cavities, varying in form and in
magnitude, into which run water, and clouds, and air. But that land
which is pure lies in the pure region of heaven.'" Celsus therefore
supposes that what we say of a land which is much better and more
excellent than this, has been borrowed from certain ancient writers
whom he styles "divine," and chiefly from Plato, who in his Phaedon
discourses on the pure land lying in a pure heaven. But he does not see
that Moses, who is much older than the Greek literature, introduces God
as promising to those who lived according to His law the holy land,
which is "a good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and
honey;"(3) which promise is not to be understood to refer, as some
suppose, to that part of the earth which we call Judea; for it, however
good it may be, still forms part of the earth, which was originally
cursed for the transgression of Adam. For these words, "Cursed shall
the ground be for what thou hast done; with grief, that is, with
labour, shalt thou eat of the fruit of it all the days of thy life,"(4)
were spoken of the whole earth, the fruit of which every man who died
in Adam eats with sorrow or labour all the days of his life. And as all
the earth has been cursed, it brings forth thorns and briers all the
days of the life of those who in Adam were driven out of paradise; and
in the sweat of his face every man eats bread until he returns to the
ground from which he was taken. For the full exposition of all that is
contained in this passage much might be said; but we have confined
ourselves to these few words at present, which are intended to remove
the idea, that what is said of the good land promised by God to the
righteous, refers to the land of Judea.
If, then, the whole earth has been cursed in the deeds of Adam
and of those who died in him, it is plain that all parts of the earth
share in the curse, and among others the land of Judea; so that the
words, "a good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey,
cannot apply to it, although we may say of it, that both Judea and
Jerusalem were the shadow and figure of that pure land, goodly and
large, in the pure region of heaven, in which is the heavenly
Jerusalem. And it is in reference to this Jerusalem that the apostle
spoke, as one who, "being risen with Christ, and seeking those things
which are above," had found a truth which formed no part of the Jewish
mythology. "Ye are come," says he, "unto Mount Sion, and unto the city
of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable
company of angels."(5) And in order to be assured that our explanation
of "the good and large land" of Moses is not contrary to the intention
of the Divine Spirit, we have only to read in all the prophets what
they say of those who, after having left Jerusalem, and wandered astray
from it, should afterwards return and be settled in the place which is
called the habitation and city of God, as in the words, "His dwelling
is in the holy place;"(6) and, "Great is the Lord, and greatly to be
praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of His holiness,
beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth."(7) It is enough
at present to quote the words of the thirty-seventh Psalm, which speaks
thus of the land of the righteous, "Those that wait upon the Lord they
shall inherit the earth;" and a little after, "But the meek shall
inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of
peace;" and again, "Those who bless Him shall inherit the earth;" and,
"The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever."(8)
And consider whether it is not evident to intelligent readers that the
following words from this same Psalm refer to the pure land in the pure
heaven: "Wait on the Lord, and keep His way; and He shall exalt thee to
inherit the land."
It seems to me also that the fancy of Plato, that those stones
which we call precious stones derive their lustre from a reflection, as
it were, of the stones in that better land, is taken from the words of
Isaiah in describing the city of God, "I will make thy battlements of
jasper, thy stones shall be crystal, and thy borders of precious
stones;"(1) and, "I will lay thy foundations with sapphires." Those who
hold in greatest reverence the teaching of Plato, explain this myth of
his as an allegory. And the prophecies from which, as we conjecture,
Plato has borrowed, will be explained by those who, leading a godly
life like that of the prophets, devote all their time to the study of
the sacred Scriptures, to those who are qualified to learn by purity of
life, and their desire to advance in divine knowledge. For our part,
our purpose has been simply to say that what we affirm of that sacred
land has not been taken from Plato or any of the Greeks, but that they
rather—living as they did not only after Moses, who was the oldest,
but even after most of the prophets—borrowed from them, and in so
doing either misunderstood their obscure intimations on such subjects,
or else endeavoured, in their allusions to the better land, to imitate
those portions of Scripture which had fallen into their hands. Haggai
expressly makes a distinction between the earth and the dry land,
meaning by the latter the land in which we live. He says: "Yet once,
and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the dry land, and the
sea."(2)
Referring to the passage in the Phaedon of Plato, Celsus says:
"It is not easy for every one to understand the meaning of Plato's
words, when he says that on account of our weakness and slowness we are
unable to reach the highest region of the air; but that if our nature
were capable of so sublime a contemplation, we would then be able to
understand that that is the true heaven, and that the true light." As
Celsus has deferred to another opportunity the explanation of Plato's
idea, we also think that it does not fall within our purpose at present
to enter into any full description of that holy and good land, and of
the city of God which is in it; but reserve the consideration of it for
our Commentary on the Prophets, having already in part, according to
our power, treated of the city of God in our remarks on the forty-sixth
and forty-eighth Psalms. The writings of Moses and the prophets—the
most ancient of all books—teach us that all things here on earth which
are in common use among men, have other things corresponding to them in
name which are alone real. Thus, for instance, there is the true light,
and another heaven beyond the firmament, and a Sun of righteousness
other than the sun we see. In a word, to distinguish those things from
the objects of sense, which have no true reality, they say of God that
"His works are truth;"(3) thus making a distinction between the works
of God and the works of God's hands, which latter are of an inferior
sort. Accordingly, God in Isaiah complains of men, that "they regard
not the works of the Lord, nor consider the operation of His hands."(4)
But enough on this point.
Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, which is a
high and difficult doctrine, and one which more than others requires a
high and advanced degree of wisdom to set forth how worthy it is of
God; and how sublime a truth it is which teaches us that there is a
seminal principle lodged in that which Scripture speaks of as the
"tabernacle" of the soul, in which the righteous "do groan, being
burdened, not for that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon."(5)
Celsus ridicules this doctrine because he does not understand it, and
because he has learnt it from ignorant persons, who were unable to
support it on any reasonable grounds. It will be profitable, therefore,
that in addition to what we have said above, we should make this one
remark. Our teaching on the subject of the resurrection is not, as
Celsus imagines, derived from anything that we have heard on the
doctrine of metempsychosis; but we know that the soul, which is
immaterial and invisible in its nature, exists in no material place,
without having a body suited to the nature of that place. Accordingly,
it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which
is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a
second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the
former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer
ethereal regions of heaven. When it comes into the world at birth, it
casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and before doing
this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon earth. Then,
again, as there is "a tabernacle" and "an earthly house" which is in
some sort necessary for this tabernacle, Scripture teaches us that "the
earthly house of this tabernacle shall be dissolved," but that the
tabernacle shall "be clothed upon with a house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens."(6) The men of God say also that "the
corruptible shall put on incorruption,"(7) which is a different thing
from "the incorruptible;" and "the mortal shall put on immortality,"
which is different from "the immortal." Indeed, what "wisdom" is to
"the wise," and "justice" to "the just," and "peace" to "the
peaceable," the same relation does "incorruption" hold to "the
incorruptible," and "immortality" to "the immortal." Behold, then, to
what a prospect Scripture encourages us to look, when it speaks to us
of being clothed with incorruption and immortality, which are, as it
were, vestments which will not suffer those who are covered with them
to come to corruption or death. Thus far I have taken the liberty of
referring to this subject, in answer to one who assails the doctrine of
the resurrection without understanding it, and who, simply because he
knew nothing about it, made it the object of contempt and ridicule.
As Celsus supposes that we uphold the doctrine of the
resurrection in order that we may see and know God, he thus follows out
his notions on the subject: "After they have been utterly refuted and
vanquished, they still, as if regardless of all objections, come back
again to the same question, 'How then shall we see and know God? how
shall we go to Him?'" Let any, however, who are disposed to hear us
observe, that if we have need of a body for other purposes, as for
occupying a material locality to which this body must be adapted, and
if on that account the "tabernacle" is clothed in the way we have
shown, we have no need of a body in order to know God. For that which
sees God is not the eye of the body; it is the mind which is made in
the image of the Creator,(1) and which God has in His providence
rendered capable of that knowledge. To see God belongs to the pure
heart, out of which no longer proceed "evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, the evil
eye,"(2) or any other evil thing. Wherefore it is said, "Blessed are
the pure in heart, for they shall see God."(3) But as the strength of
our will is not sufficient to procure the perfectly pure heart, and as
we need that God should create it, he therefore who prays as he ought,
offers this petition to God, "Create in me a clean heart, O God."(4)
And we do not ask the question, "How shall we go to God?" as
though we thought that God existed in some place. God is of too
excellent a nature for any place: He holds all things in His power, and
is Himself not confined by anything whatever. The precept, therefore,
"Thou shall walk after the Lord thy God,"(5) does not command a bodily
approach to God; neither does the prophet refer to physical nearness to
God, when he says in his prayer, "My soul followeth hard after
Thee."(6) Celsus therefore misrepresents us, when he says that we
expect to see God with our bodily eyes, to hear Him with our ears, and
to touch Him sensibly with our hands. We know that the holy Scriptures
make mention of eyes, of ears, and of hands, which have nothing but the
name in common with the bodily organs; and what is more wonderful, they
speak of a diviner sense, which is very different from the senses as
commonly spoken of. For when the prophet says, "Open Thou mine eyes,
that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law,"(7) or, "The
commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes,"(8) or,
"Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death,"(9) no one is so
foolish as to suppose that the eyes of the body behold the wonders of
the divine law, or that the law of the Lord gives light to the bodily
eyes, or that the sleep of death falls on the eyes of the body. When
our Saviour says, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,"(10) any
one will understand that the ears spoken of are of a diviner kind. When
it is said that the word of the Lord was "in the hand" of Jeremiah or
of some other prophet; or when the expression is used, "the law by the
hand of Moses," or, "I sought the Lord with my hands, and was not
deceived,(11)—no one is so foolish as not to see that the word "hands"
is taken figuratively, as when John says, "Our hands have handled the
Word of life."(12) And if you wish further to learn from the sacred
writings that there is a diviner sense than the senses of the body, you
have only to hear what Solomon says, "Thou shalt find a divine
sense."(13)
Seeking God, then, in this way, we have no need to visit the
oracles of Trophonius, of Amphiaraus, and of Mopsus, to which Celsus
would send us, assuring us that we would there "see the gods in human
form, appearing to us with all distinctness, and without illusion." For
we know that these are demons, feeding on the blood, and smoke, and
odour of victims, and shut up by their base desires in prisons, which
the Greeks call temples of the gods, but which we know are only the
dwellings of deceitful demons. To this Celsus maliciously adds, in
regard to these gods which, according to him, are in human form, "they
do not show themselves for once, or at intervals, like him who has
deceived men, but they are ever open to intercourse with those who
desire it." From this remark, it would seem that Celsus supposes that
the appearance of Christ to His disciples after His resurrection was
like that of a spectre flitting before their eyes; whereas these gods,
as he calls them, in human shape always present themselves to those who
desire it. But how is it possible that a phantom which, as he describes
it, flew past to deceive the beholders, could produce such effects
after it had passed away, and could so turn the hearts of men as to
lead them to regulate their actions according to the will of God, as in
view of being hereafter judged by Him? And how could a phantom drive
away demons, and show other indisputable evidences of power, and that
not in any one place, like these so-called gods in human form, but
making its divine power felt through the whole world, in drawing and
congregating together all who are found disposed to lead a good and
noble life?
After these remarks of Celsus, which we have endeavoured to
answer as we could, he goes on to say, speaking of us: "Again they will
ask, 'How can we know God, unless by the perception of the senses? for
how otherwise than through the senses are we able to gain any
knowledge?'" To this he replies: "This is not the language of a man; it
comes not from the soul, but from the flesh. Let them hearken to us, if
such a spiritless and carnal race are able to do so: if, instead of
exercising the senses, you look upwards with the soul; if, turning away
the eye of the body, you open the eye of the mind thus and thus only
will you be able to see God. And if you seek one to be your guide along
this way, you must shun all deceivers and jugglers, who will introduce
you to phantoms. Otherwise you will be acting the most ridiculous part,
if, whilst you pronounce imprecatious upon those others that are
recognised as gods, treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a more
wretched idol than any of these, which indeed is not even an idol or a
phantom, but a dead man, and you seek a father like to him." The first
remark which we have to make on this passage is in regard to his use of
personification, by which he makes us m defend in this way the doctrine
of the resurrection. This figure of speech is properly employed when
the character and sentiments of the person introduced are faithfully
preserved; but it is an abuse of the figure when these do not agree
with the character and opinions of the speaker. Thus we should justly
condemn a man who put into the mouths of barbarians, slaves, or
uneducated'. people the language of philosophy; because we know that
the philosophy belonged to the author, and not to such persons, who
could not know anything of philosophy. And in like manner we should
condemn a man for introducing persons who are represented as wise and
well versed in divine knowledge, and should make them give expression
to language which could only come out of the mouths of those who are
ignorant or under the influence of vulgar passions. Hence Homer is
admired, among other things, for preserving a consistency of character
in his heroes, as in Nestor, Ulysses, Diomede, Agamemnon, Telemachus,
Penelope, and the rest. Euripides, on the contrary, was assailed in the
comedies of Aristophanes as a frivolous talker, often putting into the
mouth of a barbarian woman, a wretched slave, the wise maxims which he
had learned from Anaxagoras or some other philosophers.
Now if this is a true account of what constitutes the right and
the wrong use of personification, have we not grounds for holding
Celsus up to ridicule for thus ascribing to Christians words which they
never uttered? For if those whom he represents as speaking are the
unlearned, how is it possible that such persons could distinguish
between "sense" and "reason," between "objects of sense" and "objects
of the reason?" To argue in this way, they would require to have
studied under the Stoics, who deny all intellectual existences, and
maintain that all that we apprehend is apprehended through the senses,
and that all knowledge comes through the senses. But if, on the other
hand, he puts these words into the mouth of philosophers who search
carefully into the meaning of Christian doctrines, the statements in
question do not agree with their character and principles. For no one
who has learnt that God is invisible, and that certain of His works are
invisible, that is to say, apprehended by the reason,(1) can say, as if
to justify his faith in a resurrection, "How can they know God, except
by the perception of the senses?" or, "How otherwise than through the
senses can they gain any knowledge?" For it is not in any secret
writings, perused only by a few wise men, but in such as are most
widely diffused and most commonly known among the people, that these
words are written: "The invisible things of God from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made."(2) From whence it is to be inferred, that though men who live
upon the earth have to begin with the use of the senses upon sensible
objects, in order to go on from them to a knowledge of the nature of
things intellectual, yet their knowledge must not stop short with the
objects of sense. And thus, while Christians would not say that it is
impossible to have a knowledge of intellectual objects without the
senses, but rather that the senses supply the first means of obtaining
knowledge, they might well ask the question, "Who can gain any
knowledge without the senses?" without deserving the abuse of Celsus,
when he adds, "This is not the language of a man; it comes not from the
soul, but from the flesh."
Since we hold that the great God is in essence simple, invisible,
and incorporeal, Himself pure intelligence, or something transcending
intelligence and existence, we can never say that God is apprehended by
any other means than through the intelligence which is formed in His
image, though now, in the words of Paul, "we see in a glass obscurely,
but then face to face."(1) And if we use the expression "face to face,"
let no one pervert its meaning; but let it be explained by this
passage, "Beholding with open face the glory of the Lord, we are
changed into the same image, from glory to glory," which shows that we
do not use the word in this connection to mean the visible face, but
take it figuratively, in the same way as we have shown that the eyes,
the ears, and the other parts of the body are employed. And it is
certain that a man—I mean a soul using a body, otherwise called "the
inner man," or simply "the soul"—would answer, not as Celsus makes us
answer, but as the man of God himself teaches. It is certain also that
a Christian will not make use of "the language of the flesh," having
learnt as he has "to mortify the deeds of the body"(2) by the spirit,
and "to bear about in his body the dying of Jesus;"(3) and "mortify
your members which are on the earth,"(4) and with a true knowledge of
these words, "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he
also is flesh,"(5) and again, "They that are in the flesh cannot please
God,"(6) he strives in every way to live no longer according to the
flesh, but only according to the Spirit.
Now let us hear what it is that he invites us to learn, that we
may ascertain from him how we are to know God, although he thinks that
his words are beyond the. capacity of all Christians. "Let them hear,"
says he, "if they are able to do so." We have then to consider what the
philosopher wishes us to hear from him. But instead of instructing us
as he ought, he abuses us; and while he should have shown his goodwill
to those whom he addresses at the outset of his discourse, he
stigmatizes as "a cowardly race" men who would rather die than abjure
Christianity even by a word, and who are ready to suffer every form of
torture, or any kind of death. He also applies to us that epithet
"carnal" or "flesh-indulging," "although," as we are wont to say, "we
have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth we know Him no
more,"(7) and although we are so ready to lay down our lives for the
cause of religion, that no philosopher could lay aside his robes more
readily. He then addresses to us these words: "If, instead of
exercising your senses, you look upwards with the soul; if, turning
away the eye of the body, you open the eye of the mind, thus and thus
only you will be able to see God." He is not aware that this reference
to the two eyes, the eye of the body and the eye of the mind, which he
has borrowed from the Greeks, was in use among our own writers; for
Moses, in his account of the creation of the world, introduces man
before his transgression as both seeing and not seeing: seeing, when it
is said of the woman, "The woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make
one wise;"(8) and again not seeing, as when he introduces the serpent
saying to the woman, as if she and her husband had been blind, "God
knows that on the day that ye eat thereof your eyes shall be
opened;"(9) and also when it is said, "They did eat, and the eyes of
both of them were opened."(10) The eyes of sense were then opened,
which they had done well to keep shut, that they might not be
distracted, and hindered from seeing with the eyes of the mind; and it
was those eyes of the mind which in consequence of sin, as I imagine,
were then closed, with which they had up to that time enjoyed the
delight of beholding God and His paradise. This twofold kind of vision
in us was familiar to our Saviour, who says," For judgment I am come
into this world, that they which see not, might see, and that they
which see might be made blind,"(11)—meaning, by the eyes that see not;
the eyes of the mind, which are enlightened by His teaching; and the
eyes which see are the eyes of sense, which His words do render blind,
in order that the soul may look without distraction upon proper
objects. All true Christians therefore have the eye of the mind
sharpened, and the eye of sense closed; so that each one, according to
the degree in which his better eye is quickened, and the eye of sense
darkened, sees and knows the Supreme God, and His Son, who is the Word,
Wisdom, and so forth.
Next to the remarks of Celsus on which we have already commented,
come others which he addresses to all Christians, but which, if
applicable to any, ought to be addressed to persons whose doctrines
differ entirely from those taught by Jesus. For it is the Ophians who,
as we have before shown,(1) have utterly renounced Jesus, and perhaps
some others of similar opinions who are "the impostors and jugglers,
leading men away to idols and phantoms;" and it is they who with
miserable pains learn off the names of the heavenly doorkeepers. These
words are therefore quite inappropriate as addressed to Christians: "If
you seek one to be your guide along this way, you must shun all
deceivers and jugglers, who will introduce you to phantoms." And, as
though quite unaware that these impostors entirely agree with him, and
are not behind him in speaking ill of Jesus and His religion, he thus
continues, confounding us with them: "otherwise you will be acting the
most ridiculous part, if, whilst you pronounce imprecations upon those
other recognised gods, treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a
more wretched idol than any of these, which indeed is not even an idol
or a phantom, but a dead man, and you seek a father like to himself."
That he is ignorant of the wide difference between our opinions and
those of the inventors of these fables, and that he imagines the
charges which he makes against them applicable to us, is evident from
the following passage: "For the sake of such a monstrous delusion, and
in support of those wonderful advisers, and those wonderful words which
you address to the lion, to the amphibious creature, to the creature in
the form of an ass, and to others, for the sake of those divine
doorkeepers whose names you commit to memory with such pains, in such a
cause as this you suffer cruel tortures, and perish at the stake."
Surely, then, he is unaware that none of those who regard beings in the
form of an ass a lion, or an amphibious animal, as the doorkeepers or
guides on the way to heaven, ever expose themselves to death in defence
of that which they think the truth. That excess of zeal, if it may be
so called, which leads us for the sake of religion to submit to every
kind of death, and to perish at the stake, is ascribed by Celsus to
those who endure no such sufferings; and he reproaches us who suffer
crucifixion for our faith, with believing in fabulous creatures—in the
lion, the amphibious animal, and other such monsters. If we reject all
these fables, it is not out of deference to Celsus, for we have never
at any time held any such fancies; but it is in accordance with the
teaching of Jesus that we oppose all such notions, and will not allow
to Michael, or to any others that have been referred to, a form and
figure of that sort.
But let us consider who those persons are whose guidance Celsus
would have us to follow, so that we may not be in want of guides who
are recommended both by their antiquity and sanctity. He refers us to
divinely inspired poets, as he calls them, to wise men and
philosophers, without mentioning their names; so that, after promising
to point out those who should guide us, he simply hands us over in a
general way to divinely inspired poets, wise men, and philosophers. If
he had specified their names in particular, we should have felt
ourselves bound to show him that he wished to give us as guides men who
were blinded to the truth, and who must therefore lead us into error;
or that if not wholly blinded, yet they are in error in many matters of
belief. But whether Orpheus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or even Homer
himself, and Hesiod, are the persons whom he means by "inspired poets,"
let any one show how those who follow their guidance walk in a better
way, or lead a more excellent life, than those who, being taught in the
school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues, and even
all Jewish superstition, that they may look upward through the Word of
God to the one God, who is the Father of the Word. Who, then, are those
wise men and philosophers from whom Celsus would have us to learn so
many divine truths, and for whom we are to give up Moses the servant of
God, the prophets of the Creator of the world, who have spoken so many
things by a truly divine inspiration, and even Him who has given light
and taught the way of piety to the whole human race, so that no one can
reproach Him if he remains without a share in the knowledge of His
mysteries? Such, indeed, was the abounding love which He had for men,
that He gave to the more learned a theology capable of raising the soul
far above all earthly things; while with no less consideration He comes
down to the weaker capacities of ignorant men, of simple women, of
slaves, and, in short, of all those who from Jesus alone could have
received that help for the better regulation of their lives which is
supplied by his instructions in regard to the Divine Being, adapted to
their wants and capacities.
Celsus next refers us to Plato as to a more effective teacher of
theological truth, and quotes the following passage from the Timaeus:
"It is a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of this universe;
and after having found Him, it is impossible to make Him known to all."
To which he himself adds this remark: "You perceive, then, how divine
men seek after the way of truth, and how well Plato knew that it was
impossible for all men to walk in it. But as wise men have found it for
the express purpose of being able to convey to us some notion of Him
who is the first, the unspeakable Being,—a notion, namely; which may
represent Him to us through the medium of other objects,—they
endeavour either by synthesis, which is the combining of various
qualities, or by analysis, which is the separation and setting aside of
some qualities, or finally by analogy;—in these ways, I say, they
endeavour to set before us that which it is impossible to express in
words. I should therefore be surprised if you could follow in that
course, since you are so completely wedded to the flesh as to be
incapable of seeing ought but what is impure." These words of Plato are
noble and admirable; but see if Scripture does not give us an example
of a regard for mankind still greater in God the Word, who was "in the
beginning with God," and "who was made flesh," in order that He might
reveal to all men truths which, according to Plato, it would be
impossible to make known to all men, even after he had found them
himself. Plato may say that "it is a hard thing to find out the Creator
and Father of this universe;" by which language he implies that it is
not wholly beyond the power of human nature to attain to such a
knowledge as is either worthy of God, or if not, is far beyond that
which is commonly attained (although if it were true that Plato or any
other of the Greeks had found God. they would never have given homage
and worship, or ascribed the name of God, to any other than to Him:
they would have abandoned all others, and would not have associated
with this great God objects which can have nothing in common with
Him).(1) For ourselves, we maintain that human nature is in no way able
to seek after God, or to attain a clear knowledge of Him without the
help of Him whom it seeks. He makes Himself known to those who, after
doing all that their powers will allow, confess that they need help
from Him, who discovers Himself to those whom He approves, in so far as
it is possible for man and the soul still dwelling in the body to know
God.
Observe that when Plato says, that "after having found out the
Creator and Father of the universe, it is impossible to make Him known
to all men," he does not speak of Him as unspeakable, and as incapable
of being expressed in words. On the contrary, he implies that He may be
spoken of, and that there are a few to whom He may be made known. But
Celsus, as if forgetting the language which he had just quoted from
Plato, immediately gives God the name of "the unspeakable." He says:
"since the wise men have found out this way, in order to be able to
give us some idea of the First of Beings, who is unspeakable." For
ourselves, we hold that not God alone is unspeakable, but other things
also which are inferior to Him. Such are the things which Paul labours
to express when he says, "I heard unspeakable words, which it is not
lawful for a man to utter,"(2) where the word "heard" is used in the
sense of "understood;" as in the passage, "He who hath ears to hear,
let him hear." We also hold that it is a hard matter to see the Creator
and Father of the universe; but it is possible to see Him in the way
thus referred to, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God;"(3) and not only so, but also in the sense of the words of Him
"who is the image of the invisible God; "He who hath seen Me hath seen
the Father who sent Me."(4) No sensible person could suppose that these
last words were spoken in reference to His bodily presence, which was
open to the view of all; otherwise all those who said, "Crucify him,
crucify him," and Pilate, who had power over the humanity of Jesus,
were among those who saw God the Father, which is absurd. Moreover,
that these words, "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father who sent
Me," are not to be taken in their grosser sense, is plain from the
answer which He gave to Philip, "Have I been so long time with you, and
yet dost thou not know Me, Philip?" after Philip had asked, "Show us
the Father, and it sufficeth us." He, then, who perceives how these
words, "The Word was made flesh," are to be understood of the
only-begotten Son of God, the first-born of all creation, will also
understand how, in seeing the image of the invisible God, we see "the
Creator and Father of the universe."
Celsus supposes that we may arrive at a knowledge of God either
by combining or separating certain things after the methods which
mathematicians call synthesis and analysis, or again by analogy, which
is employed by them also, and that in this way we may as it were gain
admission to the chief good. But when the Word of God says, "No man
knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will
reveal Him,"(1) He declares that no one can know God but by the help of
divine grace coming from above, with a certain divine inspiration.
Indeed, it is reasonable to suppose that the knowledge of God is beyond
the reach of human nature, and hence the many errors into which men
have fallen in their views of God. It is, then, through the goodness
and love of God to mankind, and by a marvellous exercise of divine
grace to those whom He saw in His foreknowledge, and knew that they
would walk worthy of Him who had made Himself known to them, and that
they would never swerve from a faithful attachment to His service,
although they were condemned to death or held up to ridicule by those
who, in ignorance of what true religion is, give that name to what
deserves to be called anything rather than religion. God doubtless saw
the pride and arrogance of those who, with contempt for all others,
boast of their knowledge of God, and of their profound acquaintance
with divine things obtained from philosophy, but who still, not less
even than the most ignorant, run after their images, and temples, and
famous mysteries; and seeing this, He "has chosen the foolish things of
this world"(2)—the simplest of Christians, who lead, however, a life
of greater moderation and purity than many philosophers—"to confound
the wise," who are not ashamed to address inanimate things as gods or
images of the gods. For what reasonable man can refrain from smiling
when he sees that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and
noble sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and
offers to them his prayers, or imagines that by gazing upon these
material things he can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is
spiritual and immaterial.(3) But a Christian, even of the common
people, is assured that every place forms part of the universe, and
that the whole universe is God's temple. In whatever part of the world
he is, he prays; but he rises above the universe, "shutting the eyes of
sense, and raising upwards the eyes of the soul." And he stops not at
the vault of heaven; but passing in thought beyond the heavens, under
the guidance of the Spirit of God, and having thus as it were gone
beyond the visible universe, he offers prayers to God. But he prays for
no trivial blessings, for he has learnt from Jesus to seek for nothing
small or mean, that is, sensible objects, but to ask only for what is
great and truly divine; and these things God grants to us, to lead us
to l that blessedness which is found only with Him through His Son, the
Word, who is God.
But let us see further what the things are which he proposes to
teach us, if indeed we can comprehend them, since he speaks of us as
being "utterly wedded to the flesh;" although if we live well, and in
accordance with the teaching of Jesus, we hear this said of us: "Ye are
not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you."(4) He says also that we look upon nothing that is pure, although
our endeavour is to keep even our thoughts free from all defilement of
sin, and although in prayer we say, "Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me,"(5) so that we may behold Him with
that "pure heart" to which alone is granted the privilege of seeing
Him. This, then, is what he proposes for our instruction: "Things are
either intelligible, which we call substance—being; or visible, which
we call becoming:(6) with the former is truth; from the latter arises
error. Truth is the object of knowledge; truth and error form opinion.
Intelligible objects are known by the reason, visible objects by the
eyes; the action of the reason is called intelligent perception, that
of the eyes vision. As, then, among visible things the sun is neither
the eye nor vision, but that which enables the eye to see, and renders
vision possible, and in consequence of it visible things are seen, all
sensible things exist and itself is rendered visible; so among things
intelligible, that which is neither reason, nor intelligent perception,
nor knowledge, is yet the cause which enables the reason to know, which
renders intelligent perception possible; and in consequence of it
knowledge arises, all things intelligible, truth itself and substance
have their existence; and itself, which is above all these things,
becomes in some ineffable way intelligible. These things are offered to
the consideration of the intelligent; and if even you can understand
any of them, it is well. And if you think that a Divine Spirit has
descended from God to announce divine things to men, it is doubtless
this same Spirit that reveals these truths, and it was under the same
influence that men of old made known many important truths. But if you
cannot comprehend these things, then keep silence; do not expose your
own ignorance, and do not accuse of blindness those who see, or of
lameness those who run, while you yourselves are utterly lamed and
mutilated in mind, and lead a merely animal life—the life of the body,
which is the dead part of our nature."
We are careful not to oppose fair arguments even if they proceed
from those who are not of our faith; we strive not to be captious, or
to seek to overthrow any sound reasonings. But here we have to reply to
those who slander the character of persons wishing to do their best in
the service of God, who accepts the faith which the meanest place in
Him, as well as the more refined and intelligent piety of the learned;
seeing that both alike address to the Creator of the world their
prayers and thanksgivings through the High Priest who has set before
men the nature of pure religion. We say, then, that those who are
stigmatized as "lamed and mutilated in spirit," as "living only for the
sake of the body which is dead," are persons whose endeavour it is to
say with sincerity: "For though we live' in the flesh, we do not war
according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly,
but mighty through God." It is for those who throw out such vile
accusations against men' who desire to be God's servants, to beware
lest, by the calumnies which they cast upon others who strive to live
well, they "lame" their own souls, and "mutilate" the inner man, by
severing from it that justice and moderation of mind which the Creator
has planted in the nature of all His rational creatures. As for those,
however, who, along with other lessons given by the Divine Word, have
learned and practised this, "when reviled to bless, when persecuted to
endure, when defamed to entreat,"(2) they may be said to be walking in
spirit in the ways of uprightness, to be purifying and setting in order
the whole soul. They distinguish—and to them the distinction is not
one of words merely—between "substance," or that which is, and that
which is "becoming;" between things apprehended by reason, and things
apprehended by sense; and they connect truth with the one, and avoid
the errors arising out of the other; looking, as they have been taught,
not at the things "becoming" or phenomenal, which are seen, and
therefore temporary, but at better things than these, whether we call
them "substance," or "spiritual" things, as being apprehended by
reason, or "invisible," because they lie out of the reach of the
senses. The disciples of Jesus regard these phenomenal things only that
they may use them as steps to ascend to the knowledge of the things of
reason. For "the invisible things of God," that is, the objects of the
reason, "from the creation of the world are clearly seen" by the
reason, "being understood by the things that are made." And when they
have risen from the created things of this world to the invisible
things of God, they do not stay there; but after they have sufficiently
exercised their minds upon these, and have understood their nature,
they ascend to "the eternal power of God," in a word, to His divinity.
For they know that God, in His love to men, has "manifested" His truth,
and "that which is known of Him," not only to those who devote
themselves to His service, but also to some who are far removed from
the purity of worship and service which He requires; and that some of
those who by the providence of God had attained a knowledge of them
truths, were yet doing things unworthy of, that knowledge, and "holding
the truth in unrighteousness," and who are unable to find any excuse
before God after the knowledge of such great truths which He has given
them.
For Scripture testifies, in regard to those who have a knowledge
of those things of which Celsus speaks, and who profess a philosophy
founded on these principles, that they, "when they knew God, glorified
Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their
imaginations;" and notwithstanding the bright light of knowledge with
which God had enlightened them, "their foolish heart" was carried away,
and became "darkened."(3) Thus we may see how those who accounted
themselves wise gave proofs of great folly, when, alter such grand
arguments delivered in the schools on God and on things apprehended by
the reason, they "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed
beasts, and creeping things."(4) As, then, they lived in a way unworthy
of the knowledge which they had received from God, His providence
leaving them to themselves, they were given "up to uncleanness, through
the lusts of their own hearts to dishonour their own bodies,"(5) in
shamelessness and licentiousness, because they "changed the truth of
God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator."
But those who are despised for their ignorance, and set down as
fools and abject slaves, no sooner commit themselves to God's guidance
by accepting the teaching of Jesus, than, so far from defiling
themselves by licentious indulgence or the gratification of shameless
passion, they in many cases, like perfect priests, for whom such
pleasures have no charm, keep themselves in act and in thought in a
state of virgin purity. The Athenians have one hierophant, who, not
having confidence in his power to restrain his passions within the
limits he, prescribed for himself, determined to check them at their
seat by the application of hemlock; and thus he was accounted pure, and
fit for the celebration of religious worship among the Athenians. But
among Christians may be found men who have no need of hemlock to fit
them for the pure service of God, and for whom the Word in place of
hemlock is able to drive all evil desires from their thoughts, so that
they may present their prayers to the Divine Being. And attached to the
other so-called gods are a select number of virgins, who are guarded by
men, or it may be not guarded (for that is not the point in question at
present), and who are supposed to live in purity for the honour of the
god they serve. But among Christians, those who maintain a perpetual
virginity do so for no human honours, for no fee or reward, from no
motive of vainglory;(1) but "as they choose to retain God in their
knowledge,"(2) they are preserved by God in a spirit well-pleasing to
Him, and in the discharge of every duty, being filled with all
righteousness and goodness.
What I have now said, then, is offered not for the purpose of
cavilling with any right opinions or sound doctrines held even by
Greeks, but with the desire of showing that the same things, and indeed
much better and diviner things than these, have been said by those
divine men, the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus. These truths
are fully investigated by all who wish to attain a perfect knowledge of
Christianity, and who know that "the mouth of the righteous speaketh
wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment; the law of his God is in
his heart."(3) But even in regard to those who, either from deficiency
or knowledge or want of inclination, or from not having Jesus to lead
them to a rational view of religion, have not gone into these deep
questions, we find that they believe in the Most High God, and in His
Only-begotten Son, the Word and God, and that they often exhibit in
their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and integrity;
while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and
have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, "men with men
working that which is unseemly."(4)
Celsus has not explained how error accompanies the "becoming," or
product of generation; nor has he expressed himself with sufficient
clearness to enable us to compare his ideas with ours, and to pass
judgment on them. But the prophets, who have given some wise
suggestions on the subject of things produced by generation, tell us
that a sacrifice for sin was offered even for new-born infants, as not
being free from sin.(5) They say, "I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin
did my mother conceive me;"(6) also, "They are estranged from the
womb;" which is followed by the singular expression, "They go astray as
soon as they are born, speaking lies."(7) Besides, our wise men have
such a contempt for all sensible objects, that sometimes they speak of
all material things as vanity: thus, "For the creature was made subject
to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that subjected the same
in hope;"(8) at other times as vanity of vanities, "Vanity of vanities,
saith the Preacher, all is vanity."(9) Who has given so severe an
estimate of the life of the human soul here on earth, as he who says:
"Verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity?"(10) He does
not hesitate at all as to the difference between the present life of
the soul and that which it is to lead hereafter. He does not say, "Who
knows if to die is not to live, and if to live is not death"(11) But he
boldly proclaims the truth, and says, "Our soul is bowed down to the
dust;"(12) and, "Thou hast brought me into the dust of death;"(13) and
similarly, "Who will deliver me from the body of this death?"(14) also,
"Who will change the body of our humiliation."(15) It is a prophet also
who says, "Thou hast brought us down in a place of affliction;"(16)
meaning by the "place of affliction" this earthly region, to which
Adam, that is to say, man, came after he was driven out of paradise for
sin. Observe also how well the different life of the soul here and
hereafter has been recognised by him who says, "Now we see in a glass,
obscurely, but then face to face;"(17) and, "Whilst we are in our home
in the body, we are away from our home in the Lord;" wherefore "we are
well content to go from our home in the body, and to come to our home
with the Lord."(18)
But what need is there to quote any more passages against Celsus,
in order to prove that his words contain nothing which was not said
long before among themselves, since that has been sufficiently
established by what we have said? It seems that what follows has some
reference to this: "If you think that a Divine Spirit has descended
from God to announce divine things to men, it is doubtless this same
Spirit that reveals these truths; and it was under the same influence
that men of old made known many important truths." But he does not know
how great is the difference between those things and the clear and
certain teaching of those who say to us, "Thine incorruptible spirit is
in all things, wherefore God chasteneth them by little and little that
offend;"(1) and of those who, among their other instructions, teach us
that words, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost,"(2) refer to a degree of
spiritual influence higher than that in the passage, "Ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."(3) But it is a
difficult matter, even after much careful consideration, to perceive
the difference between those who have received a knowledge of the truth
and a notion of God at different intervals and for short periods of
time, and those who are more fully inspired by God, who have constant
communion with Him, and are always led by His Spirit. Had Celsus set
himself to understand this, he would not have reproached as with
ignorance, or forbidden us to characterize as "blind" those who believe
that religion shows itself in such products of man's mechanical art as
images. For every one who sees with eyes of his soul serves the Divine
Being in no other way than in that which leads him ever to have regard
to the Creator of all, to address his prayers to Him alone, and to do
all things as in the sight of God, who sees us altogether, even to our
thoughts. Our earnest desire then is both to see for ourselves, and to
be leaders of the blind, to bring them to the Word of God, that He may
take away from their minds the blindness of ignorance. And if our
actions are worthy of Him who taught His disciples, "Ye are the light
of the world,"(4) and of the Word, who says, "The light shineth in
darkness,"(5) then we shall be light to those who are in darkness we
shall give wisdom to those who are without it, and we shall instruct
the ignorant.
And let not Celsus be angry if we describe as Fame and mutilated
in soul those who run to the temples as to places having a real
sacredness and who cannot see that no mere mechanical work of man can
be truly sacred. Those whose piety is grounded on the teaching of Jesus
also run until they come to the end of their course, when they can say
in all truth and confidence: "I have fought a good fight, I have
finished my course I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up
for me a crown of righteousness."(6) And each of us runs "not as
uncertain," and he so fights with evil "not as one beating the air,"
(7) but as against those who are subject to "the prince of the power of
the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of
disobedience."(8) Celsus may indeed say of us that we "live with the
body which is a dead thing;" but we have learnt, "If ye live after the
flesh, ye shall die; but if ye by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of
the body, ye shall live;"(9) and, "If we live in the Spirit, let us
also walk in the Spirit."(10) Would that we might convince him by our
actions that he did us wrong, when he said that we "live with the body
which is dead!"
After these remarks of Celsus, which we have done our best to
refute, he goes on to address us thus: "Seeing you are so eager for
some novelty, how much better it would have been if you had chosen as
the object of your zealous homage some one of those who died a glorious
death, and whose divinity might have received the support of some myth
to perpetuate his memory! Why, if you were not satisfied with Hercules
or Aesculapius, and other heroes of antiquity, you had Orpheus, who was
confessedly a divinely inspired man, who died a violent death. But
perhaps some others have taken him up before you. You may then take
Anaxarchus, who, when cast into a mortar, and beaten most barbarously,
showed a noble contempt for his suffering, and said, 'Beat, beat the
shell of Anaxarchus, for himself you do not beat,'—a speech surely of
a spirit truly divine. But others were before you in following his
interpretation of the laws of nature. Might you not, then, take
Epictetus, who, when his master was twisting his leg, said, smiling
and. unmoved, 'You will break my leg;' and when it was broken, he
added, Did I not tell you that you would break it?' What saying equal
to these did your god' utter under suffering? If you had said even of
the Sibyl, whose authority some of you acknowledge, that she was a
child of God, you would have said something more reasonable. But you
have had the presumption to include in her writings many impious
things,(11) and set up as a god one who ended a most infamous life by a
most miserable death. How much more suitable than he would have been
Jonah in the whale's belly, or Daniel delivered from the wild beasts,
or any of a still more portentous kind!"
But since he sends us to Hercules, let him repeat to us any of
his sayings, and let him justify his shameful subjection to Omphale.
Let him show that divine honours should be paid to one who, like a
highway robber, carries off a farmer's ox by force, and afterwards
devours it, amusing himself meanwhile with the curses of the owner; in
memory of which even to this day sacrifices offered to the demon of
Hercules are accompanied with curses. Again he proposes Aesculapius to
us, as if to oblige us to repeat what we have said already; but we
forbear. In regard to Orpheus, what does he admire in him to make him
assert that, by common consent, he was regarded as a divinely inspired
man, and lived a noble life? I am greatly deceived if it is not the
desire which Celsus has to oppose us and put down Jesus that leads him
to sound forth the praises of Orpheus; and whether, when he made
himself acquainted with his impious fables about the gods, he did not
cast them aside as deserving, even more than the poems of Homer, to be
excluded from a well-ordered state. For, indeed, Orpheus says much
Worse things than Homer of those whom they call gods. Noble, indeed, it
was in Anaxarchus to say to Aristocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, "Beat on,
beat the shell of Anaxarchus," but it is the one admirable incident in
the life of Anaxarchus known to the Greeks; and although, on the
strength of that, some like Celsus might deservedly honour the man for
his courage, yet to look up to Anaxarchus as a god is not consistent
with reason. He also directs us to Epictetus, whose firmness is justly
admired, although his saying when his leg was broken by his master is
not to be compared with the marvellous acts and words of Jesus which
Celsus refuses to believe; and these words were accompanied by such a
divine power, that even to this day they convert not only some of the
more ignorant and simple, but many also of the most enlightened of men.
When, to his enumeration of those to whom he would send us, he
adds, "What saying equal to these did your god utter under sufferings?"
we would reply, that the silence of Jesus under scourgings, and amidst
all His sufferings, spoke more for His firmness and submission than all
that was said by the Greeks when beset by calamity. Perhaps Celsus may
believe what was recorded with all sincerity by trustworthy men, who,
while giving a truthful account of all the wonders performed by Jesus,
specify among these the silence which He preserved when subjected to
scourgings; showing the same singular meekness Under the insults which
were heaped upon Him, when they put upon Him the purple robe, and set
the crown of thorns upon His head, and when they put in His hand a reed
in place of a sceptre: no unworthy or angry word escaped Him against
those who subjected Him to such outrages. Since, then, He received the
scourgings with silent firmness, and bore with meekness all the insults
of those who outraged Him, it cannot be said, as is said by some, that
it was in cowardly weakness that He uttered the words: "Father, if it
be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless, not as I will,
but as Thou wilt."(1) The prayer which seems to be contained in these
words for the removal of what He calls "the cup" bears a sense which we
have elsewhere examined and set forth at large. But taking it in its
more obvious sense, consider if it be not a prayer offered to God with
all piety. For no man naturally regards anything which may befall him
as necessary and inevitable; though he may submit to what is not
inevitable, if occasion requires. Besides, these words, "nevertheless,
not as I will, but as Thou wilt," are not the language of one who
yielded to necessity, but of one who was contented with what was
befalling Him, and who submitted with reverence to the arrangements of
Providence.
Celsus then adds, for what reason I know not, that instead of
calling Jesus the Son of God, we had better have given that honour to
the Sibyl, in whose books he maintains we have interpolated many
impious statements, though he does not mention what those
interpolations are.(2) He might have proved his assertion by producing
some older copies which are free from the interpolations which he
attributes to us; but he does not do so even to justify his statement
that these passages are of an impious character. Moreover, he again
speaks of the life of Jesus as "a most infamous life," as he has done
before, not once or twice, but many times, although he does not stay to
specify any of the actions of His life which he thinks most infamous.
He seems to think that he may in this way make assertions without
proving them, and rail against one of whom he knows nothing. Had he set
himself to show what sort of infamy he found in the actions of Jesus,
we should have repelled the several charges brought against Him. Jesus
did indeed meet with a most sad death; but the same might be said of
Socrates, and of Anaxarchus, whom he had just mentioned, and a
multitude of others. If the death of Jesus was a miserable one, was not
that of the others so too? And if their death was not miserable, can it
be said that the death of Jesus was? You see from this, then, that the
object of Celsus is to vilify the character of Jesus; and I can only
suppose that he is driven to it by some spirit akin to those whose
power has been broken and vanquished by Jesus, and which now finds
itself deprived of the smoke and blood on which it lived, whilst
deceiving those who sought for God here upon earth in images, instead
of looking up to the true God, the Governor of all things.
After this, as though his object was to swell the size of his
book, he advises us "to choose Jonah rather than Jesus as our God;"
thus setting Jonah, who preached repentance to the single city of
Nineveh, before Jesus, who has preached repentance to the whole world,
and with much greater results. He would have us to regard as God a man
who, by a strange miracle, passed three days and three nights in the
whale's belly; and he is unwilling that He who submitted to death for
the sake of men, He to whom God bore testimony through the prophets,
and who has done great things in heaven and earth, should receive on
that ground honour second only to that which is given to the Most High
God. Moreover, Jonah was swallowed by the whale for refusing to preach
as God had commanded him; while Jesus suffered death for men after He
had given the instructions which God wished Him to give. Still further,
he adds that Daniel rescued from the lions is more worthy of our
adoration than Jesus, who subdued the fierceness of every opposing
power, and gave to us "authority to tread on serpents and scorpions,
and over all the power of the enemy."(1) Finally, having no other names
to offer us, he adds, "and others of a still more monstrous kind," thus
casting a slight upon both Jonah and Daniel, for the spirit which is in
Celsus cannot speak well of the righteous.
Let us now consider what follows. "They have also," says he, "a
precept to this effect, that we ought not to avenge ourselves on one
who injures us, or, as he expresses it, 'Whosoever shall strike thee on
the one cheek, turn to him the other also.' This is an ancient saying,
which had been admirably expressed long before, and which they have
only reported in a coarser way. For Plato introduces Socrates
conversing with Crito as follows: 'Must we never do injustice to any?'
'Certainly not.' 'And since we must never do injustice, must we not
return injustice for an injustice that has been done to us, as most
people think?' 'It seems to me that we should not.' 'But tell me,
Crito, may we do evil to any one or not?' 'Certainly not, O Socrates.'
'Well, is it just, as is commonly said, for one who has suffered wrong
to do wrong in return, or is it unjust?' 'It is unjust. Yes; for to do
harm to a man is the same as to do him injustice.' 'You speak truly. We
must then not do injustice in return for injustice, nor must we do evil
to any one, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.' Thus Plato
speaks; and he adds, 'Consider, then, whether you are at one with me,
and whether, starting from this principle, we may not come to the
conclusion .that it is never right to do injustice, even in return for
an injustice which has been received; or whether, on the other hand,
you differ from me, and do not admit the principle from which we
started. That has always been my opinion, and is so still.'(2) Such are
the sentiments of Plato, and indeed they were held by divine men before
his time. But let this suffice as one example of the way in which this
and other truths have been borrowed and corrupted. Any one who wishes
can easily by searching find more of them."
When Celsus here or elsewhere finds himself unable to dispute the
truth of what we say, but avers that the same things were said by the
Greeks, our answer is, that if the doctrine be sound, and the effect of
it good, whether it was, made known to the Greeks by Plato or any of
the wise men of Greece, or whether it was delivered to the Jews by
Moses or any of the prophets, or whether it was given to the Christians
in the recorded teaching of Jesus Christ, or in the instructions of His
apostles, that does not affect the value of the truth communicated. It
is no objection to the principles of Jews or Christians, that the same
things were also said by the Greeks, especially if it be proved that
the writings of the Jews are older than those of the Greeks. And
further, we are not to imagine that a truth adorned with the graces of
Grecian speech is necessarily better than the same when expressed in
the more humble and unpretending language used by Jews and Christians,
although indeed the language of the Jews, in which the prophets wrote
the books which have come down to us, has a grace of expression
peculiar tO the genius of the Hebrew tongue. And even if we were
required to show that the same doctrines have been better expressed
among the Jewish prophets or in Christian writings, however paradoxical
it may seem, we are prepared to prove this by an illustration taken
from different kinds of food, and from the different modes of preparing
them. Suppose that a kind of food which is wholesome and nutritious has
been prepared and seasoned in such a way as to be fit, not for the
simple tastes of peasants and poor labourers, but for those only who
are rich and dainty in their tastes. Suppose, again, that that same
food is prepared not to suit the tastes of the more delicate, but for
the peasants, the poor labourers, and the common people generally, in
short, so that myriads of persons might eat of it. Now if, according to
the supposition, the food prepared in the one way promotes the health
of those only who are styled the better classes, while none of the
others could taste it, whereas when prepared in the other way it
promoted the health of great multitudes of men, which shall we esteem
as most contributing to the public welfare,—those who prepare food for
persons of mark, or those who prepare it for the multitudes?—taking
for granted that in both cases the food is equally wholesome and
nourishing; while it is evident that the welfare of mankind and the
common good are promoted better by that physician who attends to the
health of the many, than by one who confines his attention to a few.
Now, after understanding this illustration, we have to apply it
to the qualities of spiritual food with which the rational part of man
is nourished. See, then, if Plato and the wise men among the Greeks, in
the beautiful things they say, are not like those physicians who
confine their attentions to what are called the better classes of
society, and despise the multitude; whereas the prophets among the
Jews, and the disciples of Jesus, who despise mere elegances of style,
and what is called in Scripture "the wisdom of men," "the wisdom
according to the flesh," which delights in what is obscure, resemble
those who study to provide the most wholesome food for the largest
number of persons. For this purpose they adapt their language and style
to the capacities of the common people, and avoid whatever would seem
foreign to them, lest by the introduction of strange forms of
expression they should produce a distaste for their teaching. Indeed,
if the true use of spiritual food, to keep up the figure, is to produce
in him who partakes of it the virtues of patience and gentleness, must
that discourse not be better prepared when it produces patience and
gentleness in multitudes, or makes them grow in these virtues, than
that which confines its effects to a select few, supposing that it does
really make them gentle and patient? If a Greek wished by wholesome
instruction to benefit people who understood only Egyptian or Syriac,
the first thing that he would do would be to learn their language; and
he would rather pass for a Barbarian among the Greeks, by speaking as
the Egyptians or Syrians, in order to be useful to them, than always
remain Greek, and be without the means of helping them. In the same way
the divine nature, having the purpose of instructing not only those who
are reputed to be learned in the literature of Greece, but also the
rest of mankind, accommodated itself to the capacities of the simple
multitudes whom it addressed. It seeks to win the attention of the more
ignorant by the use of language which is familiar to them, so that they
may easily be induced, after their first introduction, to strive after
an acquaintance with the deeper truths which lie hidden in Scripture.
For even the ordinary reader of Scripture may see that it contains many
things which are too deep to be apprehended at first; but these are
understood by such as devote themselves to a careful study of the
divine word, and they become plain to them in proportion to the pains
and zeal which they expend upon its investigation.
From these remarks it is evident, that when Jesus said
"coarsely," as Celsus terms it, "To him who shall strike thee on the
one cheek, turn the other also; and if any man be minded to sue thee at
the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,"(1) He
expressed Himself in such a way as to make the precept have more
practical effect than the words of Plato in the Crito; for the latter
is so far from being intelligible to ordinary persons, that even those
have a difficulty in understanding him, who have been brought up in the
schools of learning, and have been initiated into the famous philosophy
of Greece. It may also be observed, that the precept enjoining patience
under injuries is in no way corrupted or degraded by the plain and
simple language which our Lord employs, but that in this, as in other
cases, it is a mere calumny against our religion which he utters when
he says: "But let this suffice as one example of the way in which this
and other truths have been borrowed and corrupted. Any one who wishes
can easily by searching find more of them."
Let us now see what follows. "Let us pass on," says he, "to
another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images.(1) In
this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the
Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and
impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions
is shown by Herodotus in these words: 'I know that among the Persians
it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they
charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do
not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.'(2)
Heraclitus also says in one place: 'Persons who address prayers to
these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who
the gods or the heroes are.' And what wiser lesson have they to teach
us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a
foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not
who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as
for them, they go further, and despise without exception all images. If
they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been
wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous
with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his
simpliCity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated
to the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are
not to regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God
has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then
let them take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say
that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to
Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are
like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings.
But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not
gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship
demons."
To this our answer is, that if the Scythians, the nomadic tribes
of Libya, the Seres, who according to Celsus have no god, if those
other most barbarous and impious nations in the world, and if the
Persians even cannot bear the sight of temples, altars, and images, it
does not follow because we cannot suffer them any more than they, that
the grounds on which we object to them are the same as theirs. We must
inquire into the principles on which the objection to temples and
images is rounded, in order that we may approve of those who object on
sound principles, and condemn those whose principles are false. For one
and the same thing may be done for different reasons. For example, the
philosophers who follow Zeno of Citium abstain from committing
adultery, the followers of Epicurus do so too, as well as others again
who do so on no philosophical principles; but observe what different
reasons determine the conduct of these different classes. The first
consider the interests of society, and hold it to be forbidden by
nature that a man who is a reasonable being should corrupt a woman whom
the laws have already given to another, and should thus break up the
household of another man. The Epicureans do not reason in this way; but
if they abstain from adultery, it is because, regarding pleasure as the
chief end of man, they perceive that one who gives himself up to,
adultery, encounters for the sake of this one pleasure a multitude of
obstacles to pleasure, such as imprisonment, exile, and death itself.
They often, indeed, run considerable risk at the outset, while watching
for the departure from the house of the master and those in his
interest. So that, supposing it possible for a man to commit adultery,
and escape the knowledge of the husband, of his servants, and of others
whose esteem he would forfeit, then the Epicurean would yield to the
commission of the crime for the sake of pleasure. The man of no
philosophical system, again, who abstains from adultery when the
opportunity comes to him, does so generally from dread of the law and
its penalties, and not for the sake of enjoying a greater number of
other pleasures. You see, then, that an act which passes for being one
and the same—namely, abstinence from adultery—is not the same, but
differs in different men according to the motives which actuate it: one
man refraining for sound reasons, another for such bad and impious ones
as those of the Epicurean, and the common person of whom we have spoken.
As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one
and the same, is found in fact to be different in different persons,
according to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the
same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being
altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians, the Nomadic Libyans, the
godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and
Jews, but they are actuated by very different principles. For none of
these former abhor altars and images on the ground that they arc afraid
of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of
material things wrought by the hands of men.(3) Neither do they object
to them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places,
whether because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or
because for some other possible reason they have selected these haunts,
where they may pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the
smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to
this command, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him
alone;"(1) and this other, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me:
thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself
to them, nor serve them;"(2) and again, "Thou shalt worship the Lord
thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."(3) It is in consideration of
these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples,
altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary,
rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have
of the Most High God.
In regard to the Persians, we have already said that though they
do not build temples, yet they worship the sun and the other works of
God. This is forbidden to us, for we have been taught not to worship
the creature instead of the Creator, but to know that "the creation
shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of
the glory of the children of God;" and "the earnest expectation of the
creation is waiting for the revelation of the sons of God;" and "the
creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by; reason of
him who made it subject:, in hope."(4) We believe, therefore, that
things "under the bondage of corruption," and "subject to vanity,"
which remain in this condition "in hope" of a better state, ought not
in our worship to hold the place of God, the all-sufficient, and of His
Son, the First-born of all creation. Let this suffice, in addition to
what we have already said of the Persians, who abhor altars and images,
but who serve the creature instead of the Creator. As to the passage
quoted by Celsus from Heraclitus, the purport of which he represents as
being, "that it is childish folly for one to offer prayers to images,
whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are," we may reply that it
is easy to know that God and the Only-begotten Son of God, and those
whom God has honoured with the title of God, and who partake of His
divine nature, are very different from all the gods of the nations
which are demons; but it is not possible at the same time to know God
and to address prayers to images.(5)
And the charge of folly applies not only to those who offer
prayers to images, but also to such as pretend to do so in compliance
with the example of the multitude: and to this class belong the
Peripatetic philosophers and the followers of Epicurus and Democritus.
For there is no falsehood or pretence in the soul which is possessed
with true piety towards God. Another reason also why we abstain from
doing honour to images, is that we may give no support to the notion
that the images are gods. It is on this ground that we condemn Celsus,
and all others who, while admitting that they are not gods, yet, with
the reputation of being wise men, render to them what passes for
homage. In this way they lead into sin the multitude who follow their
example, and who worship these images not simply out of deference to
custom, but from a belief into which they have fallen that they are
true gods, and that those are not to be listened to who hold that the
objects of their worship are not true gods. Celsus, indeed, says that
"they do not take them for gods, but only as offerings dedicated to the
gods." But he does not prove that they are not rather dedicated to men
than, as he says, to the honour of the gods themselves; for it is clear
that they are the offerings of men who were in error in their views of
the Divine Being. Moreover, we do not imagine that these images are
representations of God, for they cannot represent a being who is
invisible and incorporeal.(6) But as Celsus supposes that we fall into
a contradiction, whilst on the one hand we say that God has not a human
form, and on the other we profess to believe that God made man the
image of Himself, and created man the image of God; our answer is the
same as has been given already, that we hold the resemblance to God to
be preserved in the reasonable soul, which is formed to virtue,
although Celsus, who does not see the difference between "being the
image of God," and "being created after the image of God," pretends
that we said, "God made man His own image, and gave him a form like to
His own." But this also has been examined before.
His next remark upon the Christians is: "They will admit that
these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to
the honour of certain beings; but they will hold that the beings to
whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper
of God ought not to worship demons." If he had been acquainted with the
nature of demons, and with their several operations, whether led on to
them by the conjurations of those who are skilled in the art, or urged
on by their own inclination to act according to their power and
inclination; if, I say, he had thoroughly understood this subject,
which is both wide in extent and difficult for human comprehension, he
would not have condemned us for saying that those who worship the
Supreme Being should not serve demons. For ourselves, so far are we
from wishing to serve demons, that by the use of prayers and other
means which we learn from Scripture, we drive them out of the souls of
men, out of places where they have established themselves, and even
sometimes from the bodies of animals; for even these creatures often
suffer from injuries inflicted upon them by demons.
After all that we have already said concerning Jesus, it would be
a useless repetition for us to answer these words of Celsus: "It is
easy to convict them of worshipping not a god, not even demons, but a
dead person." Leaving, then, this objection for the reason assigned,
let us pass on to what follows: "In the first place, I would ask why we
are not to serve demons? Is it not true that all things are ordered
according to God's will, and that His providence governs all things? Is
not everything which happens in the universe, whether it be the work of
God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, regulated by the law of
the Most High God? Have these not had assigned them various departments
of which they were severally deemed worthy? it not just, therefore,
that he who worships God should serve those also to whom God has
assigned such power? Yet it is impossible, he says, for a man to serve
many masters." Observe here again how he settles at once a number of
questions which require considerable research, and a profound
acquaintance with what is most mysterious in the government of the
universe. For we must inquire into the meaning of the statement, that
"all things are ordered according to God's will," and ascertain whether
sins are or are not included among the things which God orders. For if
God's government extends to sins not only in men, but also in demons
and in any other spiritual beings who are capable of sin, it is for
those who speak in this manner to see how inconvenient is the
expression that "all things are ordered by the will of God." For it
follows from it that all sins and all their consequences are ordered by
the will of God, which is a different thing from saying that they come
to pass with God's permission. For if we take the word "ordered" in its
proper signification, and say that "all the results of sin were
ordered," then it is evident that all things are ordered according to
God's will, and that all, therefore, who do evil do not offend against
His government. And the same distinction holds in regard to
"providence." When we say that "the providence of God regulates all
things," we utter a great truth if we attribute to that providence
nothing but what is just and right. But if we ascribe to the providence
of God all things whatsoever, however unjust they rusty be, then it is
no longer true that the providence of God regulates all things, unless
we refer directly to God's providence things which flow as results from
His arrangements. Celsus maintains also, that "whatever happens in the
universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or
of heroes, is regulated by the law of the Most High God." But this also
is incorrect; for we cannot say that transgressors follow the law of
God when they transgress; and Scripture declares that it is not only
wicked men who are transgressors, but also wicked demons and wicked
angels.
And it is not we alone who speak of wicked demons, but almost all
who acknowledge the existence of demons. Thus, then, it is not true
that all observe the law of the Most High; for all who fall away from
the divine law, whether through heedlessness, or through depravity and
vice, or through ignorance of what is right, all such do not keep the
law of God, but, to use a new phrase which we find in Scripture, "the
law of sin. I say, then, that in the opinion of most of those who
believe in the existence of demons, some of them are wicked; and these,
instead of keeping the law of God, offend against it. But, according to
our belief, it is true of all demons, that they were not demons
originally, but they became so in departing from the true way; so that
the name "demons" is given to those beings who have fallen away from
God. Accordingly, those who worship God must not serve demons. We may
also learn the true nature of demons if we consider the practice of
those who call upon them by charms to prevent certain things, or for
many other purposes. For this is the method they adopt, in order by
means of incantations and magical arts to invoke the demons, and induce
them to further their wishes. Wherefore, the worship of all demons
would be inconsistent in us who worship the Supreme God; and the
service of demons is the service of so-called gods, for "all the gods
of the heathen are demons.''(1) The same thing also appears from the
fact that the dedication of the most famous of the so-called sacred
places, whether temples or statues, was accompanied by curious magical
incantations, which were performed by those who zealously served the
demons with magical arts. Hence we are determined to avoid the worship
of demons even as we would avoid death; and we hold that the worship,
which is supposed among the Greeks to be rendered to gods at the
altars, and images, and temples, is in reality offered to demons.
His next remark was, "Have not these inferior powers had assigned
to them by God different departments, according as each was deemed
worthy?" But this is a question which requires a very profound
knowledge. For we must determine whether the Word of God, who governs
all things, has appointed wicked demons for certain employments, in the
same way as in states executioners are appointed, and other officers
with creel but needful duties to discharge; or whether as among
robbers, who infest desert places, it is customary for them to choose
out of their number one who may be their leader,—so the demons, who
are scattered as it were in troops in different parts of the earth,
have chosen for themselves a chief under whose command they may plunder
and pillage the souls of men. To explain this fully, and to justify the
conduct of the Christians in refusing homage to any object except the
Most High God, and the First-born of all creation, who is His Word and
God, we must quote this from Scripture, "All that ever came before Me
are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them;" and again,
"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy;"'
and other similar passages, as, "Behold, I have given you authority to
tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power. of the enemy:
and nothing shall by any means hurt you;"(2) and again, "Thou shall
tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shall thou
trample under feet."(3) But of these things Celsus knew nothing, or he
would not have made use of language like this: "Is not everything which
happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of
other demons, or of heroes, regulated by the law of the Most High God?
Have these not had assigned to them various departments of which they
were severally deemed worthy? Is it not just, therefore, that he who
serves God should serve those also to whom God has assigned such
power?" To which he adds, "It is impossible, they say, for a man to
serve many masters." This last point we must postpone to the next book;
for this, which is the seventh book which we have written in answer to
the treatise of Celsus, is already of sufficient length.