This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
BOOK III.
IN the first book of our answer to the work of Celsus, who had
boastfully entitled the treatise which he had composed against us A
True Discourse, we have gone through, as you enjoined, my faithful
Ambrosius, to the best of our ability, his preface, and the parts
immediately following it, testing each one of his assertions as we went
along, until we finished with the tirade (1) of this Jew of his,
feigned. to have been delivered against Jesus. And in the second book
we met, as we best could, all the charges contained in the invective
(1) of the said Jew, which were levelled at us who are believers in God
through Christ; and now we enter upon this third division of our
discourse, in which our object is to refute the allegations which he
makes in his own person.
He gives it as his opinion, that "the controversy between Jews
and Christians is a most foolish one," and asserts that "the
discussions which we have with each other regarding Christ differ in no
respect from what is called in the proverb, 'a fight about the shadow
of an ass;' " (2) and thinks that "there is nothing of importance (3)
in the investigations of the Jews and Christians: for both believe that
it was predicted by the Divine Spirit that one was to come as a Saviour
to the human race, but do not yet agree on the point whether the person
predicted has actually come or not." For we Christians, indeed, have
believed in Jesus, as He who came according to the predictions of the
prophets. But the majority of the Jews are so far from believing in
Him, that those of them who lived at the time of His coming conspired
against Him; and those of the present day, approving of what the Jews
of former times dared to do against Him, speak evil of Him, asserting
that it was by means of sorcery (4) that he passed himself off for Him
who was predicted by the prophets as the One who was to come, and who
was called, agreeably to the traditions of the Jews, (5) the Christ.
But let Celsus, and those who assent to his charges, tell us
whether it is at all like "an ass's shadow," that the Jewish prophets
should have predicted the birth-place of Him who was to be the ruler of
those who had lived righteous lives, and who are called the "heritage"
of God; (6) and that Emmanuel should be conceived by a virgin; and that
such signs and wonders should be performed by Him who was the subject
of prophecy; and that His word should have such speedy course, that the
voice of His apostles should go forth into all the earth; and that He
should undergo certain sufferings after His condemnation by the Jews;
and that He should rise again from the dead. For was it by chance (7)
that the prophets made these announcements, with no persuasion of the
truth in their minds, (8) moving them not only to speak, but to deem
their announcements worthy of being committed to writing? And did so
great a nation as that of the Jews, who had long ago received a country
of their own wherein to dwell, recognise certain men as prophets, and
reject others as utterers of false predictions, without any conviction
of the soundness of the distinction? (8) And was there no motive which
induced them to class with the books of Moses, which were held as
sacred, the words of those persons who were afterwards deemed to be
prophets? And can those who charge the Jews and Christians with folly,
show us how the Jewish nation could have continued to subsist, had
there existed among them no promise of the knowledge of future events?
and how, while each of the surrounding nations believed, agreeably to
their ancient institutions, that they received oracles and predictions
from those whom they accounted gods, this people alone, who were taught
to view with contempt all those who were considered gods by the
heathen, as not being gods, but demons, according to the declaration of
the prophets, "For all the gods of the nations are demons," (1) had
among them no one who professed to be a prophet, and who could restrain
such as, from a desire to know the future, were ready to desert I to
the demons (1) of other nations? Judge, then, whether it were not a
necessity, that as the whole nation had been taught to despise the
deities of other lands, they should have had an abundance of prophets,
who made known events which were of far greater importance in
themselves, (3) and which surpassed the oracles of all other countries.
In the next place, miracles were performed in all countries, or
at least in many of them, as Celsus himself admits, instancing the case
of AEsculapius, who conferred benefits on many, and who foretold future
events to entire cities, which were dedicated to him, such as Tricca,
and Epidaurus, and Cos, and Pergamus; and along with AEsculapius he
mentions Aristeas of Proconnesus, and a certain Clazomenian, and
Cleomedes of Astypalaea. But among the Jews alone, who say they are
dedicated to the God of all things, there was wrought no miracle or
sign which might help to confirm their faith in the Creator of all
things, and strengthen their hope of another and better life! But how
can they imagine such a state of things? For they would immediately
have gone over to the worship of those demons which gave oracles and
performed cures, and deserted the God who was believed, as far as words
went, (4) to assist them, but who never manifested to them His visible
presence. But if this result has not taken place, and if, on the
contrary, they have suffered countless calamities rather than renounce
Judaism and their law, and have been cruelly treated, at one time in
Assyria, at another in Persia, and at another under Antiochus, is it
not in keeping with the probabilities of the case s for those to
suppose who do not yield their belief to their miraculous histories and
prophecies, that the events in question could not be inventions, but
that a certain divine Spirit being in the holy souls of the prophets,
as of men who underwent any labour for the cause of virtue, did move
them to prophesy some things relating to their contemporaries, and
others to their posterity, but chiefly regarding a certain personage
who was to come as a Saviour to the human race?
And if the above be the state of the case, how do Jews and
Christians search after "the shadow of an ass," in seeking to ascertain
from those prophecies which they believe in common, whether He who was
foretold has come, or has not yet arrived, and is still an object of
expectation? But even suppose (6) it be granted to Celsus that it was
not Jesus who was announced by the prophets, then, even on such a
hypothesis, the investigation of the sense of the prophetic writings is
no search after "the shadow of an ass," if He who was spoken of can be
clearly pointed out, and it can be shown both what sort of person He
was predicted to be, and what He was to do, and, if possible, when He
was to arrive. But in the preceding pages we have already spoken on the
point of Jesus being the individual who was foretold to be the Christ,
quoting a few prophecies out of a larger number. Neither Jews nor
Christians, then, are wrong in assuming that the prophets spoke under
divine influence; (7) but they are in error who form erroneous opinions
respecting Him who was expected by the prophets to come, and whose
person and character were made known in their "true discourses."
Immediately after these points, Celsus, imagining that the Jews
are Egyptians by descent, and had abandoned Egypt, after revolting
against the Egyptian state, and despising the customs of that people in
matters of worship, says that "they suffered from the adherents of
Jesus, who believed in Him as the Christ, the same treatment which they
had inflicted upon the Egyptians; and that the cause which led to the
new state of things s in either instance was rebellion against the
state." Now let us observe what Celsus has here done. The ancient
Egyptians, after inflicting many cruelties upon the Hebrew race, who
had settled in Egypt owing to a famine which had broken out in Judea,
suffered, in consequence of their injustice to strangers and
suppliants, that punishment which divine Providence had decreed was to
fall on the whole nation for having combined against an entire people,
who had been their guests, and who had done them no harm; and after
being smitten by plagues from God, they allowed them, with difficulty,
and after a brief period, to go wherever they liked, as being unjustly
detained in slavery. Because, then, they were a selfish people, who
hon-outer those who were in any degree related to them far more than
they did strangers of better lives, there is not an accusation which
they have omitted to bring against Moses and the Hebrews,—not
altogether denying, indeed, the miracles and wonders done by him, but
alleging that they were wrought by sorcery, and not by divine power.
Moses, however, not as a magician, but as a devout man, and one devoted
to the God of all things, and a partaker in the divine Spirit, both
enacted laws for the Hebrews, according to the suggestions of the
Divinity, and recorded events as they happened with perfect fidelity.
Celsus, therefore, not investigating in a spirit of impartiality
the facts, which are related by the Egyptians in one way, and by the
Hebrews in another, but being bewitched, as it were,[1] in favour of
the former, accepted as true the statements of those who had oppressed
the strangers, and declared that the Hebrews, who had been unjustly
treated, had departed from Egypt after revolting against the
Egyptians,—not observing how impossible it was for so great a
multitude of rebellious Egyptians to become a nation, which, dating its
origin from the said revolt, should change its language at the time of
its rebellion, so that those who up to that time made use of the
Egyptian tongue, should completely adopt, all at once, the language of
the Hebrews! Let it be granted, however, according to his supposition,
that on abandoning Egypt they did conceive a hatred also of their
mother tongue,[2] how did it happen that after so doing they did not
rather adopt the Syrian or Phoenician language, instead of preferring
the Hebrew, which is different from both? But reason seems to me to
demonstrate that the statement is false, which makes those who were
Egyptians by race to have revolted against Egyptians, and to have left
the country, and to have proceeded to Palestine, and occupied the land
now called Judea. For Hebrew was the language of their fathers before
their descent into Egypt; and the Hebrew letters, employed by Moses in
writing those five books which are deemed sacred by the Jews, were
different from those of the Egyptians.
In like manner, as the statement is false "that the Hebrews,
being (originally) Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their
political existence) from the time of their rebellion," so also is
this, "that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against
the Jewish state, and became His followers;" for neither Celsus nor
they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of
Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to
the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its
existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take
up arms in defence of the members of their families, and to slay their
enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the
putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right
for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For
He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived
from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever.
Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion,
have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow
them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to
resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into
things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt., that it is a
miracle if a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew,
as if it had been a gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets
said, "As they went forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they
did not understand."[3]
In the following way, also, we may conclude that they who came
out of Egypt with Moses were not Egyptians; for if they had been
Egyptians, their names also would be Egyptian, because in every
language the designations (of persons and things) are kindred to the
language.[4] But if it is certain, from the names being Hebrew, that
the people were not Egyptians,—and the Scriptures are full of Hebrew
names, and these bestowed, too, upon their children while they were in
Egypt,—it is clear that the Egyptian account is false, which asserts
that they were Egyptians, and went forth from Egypt with Moses. Now it
is absolutely certain[5] that, being descended, as the Mosaic history
records, from Hebrew ancestors, they employed a language from which
they also took the names which they conferred upon their children. But
with regard to the Christians, because they were taught not to avenge
themselves upon their enemies (and have thus observed laws of a mild
and philanthropic character); and because they would not, although
able, have made war even if they had received authority to do so,—they
have obtained this reward from God, that He has always warred in their
behalf, and on certain occasions has restrained those who rose up
against them and desired to destroy them. For in order to remind
others, that by seeing a few engaged in a struggle for their religion,
they also might be better fitted to despise death, some, on special
occasions, and these individuals who can be easily numbered, have
endured death for the sake of Christianity,—God not permitting the
whole nation to be exterminated, but desiring that it should continue,
and that the whole world should be filled with this salutary and
religious doctrine.[1] And again, on the other hand, that those who
were of weaker minds might recover their courage and rise superior to
the thought of death, God interposed His providence on behalf of
believers, dispersing by an act of His will alone all the conspiracies
formed against them; so that neither kings, nor rulers, nor the
populace, might be able to rage against them beyond a certain point.
Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus, "that a revolt
was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish state, and
subsequently of Christianity."
But since he is manifestly guilty of falsehood in the statements
which follow, let us examine his assertion when he says, "If all men
wished to become Christians, the latter would not desire such a
result." Now that the above statement is false is clear from this, that
Christians do not neglect, as far as in them lies, to take measures to
disseminate their doctrine throughout the whole world. Some of them,
accordingly, have made it their business to itinerate not only through
cities, but even villages and country houses,[2] that they might make
converts to God. And no one would maintain that they did this for the
sake of gain, when sometimes they would not accept even necessary
sustenance; or if at any time they were pressed by a necessity of this
sort, were contented with the mere supply of their wants, although many
were willing to share (their abundance) with them, and to bestow help
upon them far above their need. At the present day, indeed, when, owing
to the multitude of Christian believers, not only rich men, but persons
of rank, and delicate and high-born ladies, receive the teachers of
Christianity, some perhaps will dare to say that it is for the sake of
a little glory s that certain individuals assume the office of
Christian instructors. It is impossible, however, rationally to
entertain such a suspicion with respect to Christianity in its
beginnings, when the danger incurred, especially by its teachers, was
great; while at the present day the discredit attaching to it among the
rest of mankind is greater than any supposed honour enjoyed among those
who hold the same belief, especially when such honour is not shared by
all. It is false, then, from the very nature of the case, to say that
"if all men wished to become Christians, the latter would not desire
such a result."
But observe what he alleges as a proof of his statement:
"Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions;
but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and
separated, each wishing to have his own individual party:[4] for this
was their object from the beginning." That Christians at first were few
in number, in comparison with the multitudes who subsequently became
Christian, is undoubted; and yet, all things considered, they were not
so very few.[5] For what stirred up the envy of the Jews against Jesus,
and aroused them to conspire against Him, was the great number of those
who followed Him into the wilderness,—five thousand men on one
occasion, and four thousand on another, having attended Him thither,
without including the women and children. For such was the charm[6] of
Jesus' words, that not only were men willing to follow Him to the
wilderness, but women also, forgetting[7] the weakness of their sex and
a regard for outward propriety[8] in thus following their Teacher into
desert places. Children, too, who are altogether unaffected by such
emotions,[9] either following their parents, or perhaps attracted also
by His divinity, in order that it might be implanted within them,
became His followers along with their parents. But let it be granted
that Christians were few in number at the beginning, how does that help
to prove that Christians would be unwilling to make all men believe the
doctrine of the Gospel?
He says, in addition, that "all the Christians were of one mind,"
not observing, even in this particular, that from the beginning there
were differences of opinion among believers regarding the meaning[10]
of the books held to be divine. At all events, while the apostles were
still preaching, and while eye-witnesses of (the works of) Jesus were
still teaching His doctrine, there was no small discussion among the
converts from Judaism regarding Gentile believers, on the point whether
they ought to observe Jewish customs, or should reject the burden of
clean and unclean meats, as not being obligatory on those who had
abandoned their ancestral Gentile customs, and had become believers in
Jesus. Nay, even in the Epistles of Paul, who was contemporary with
those who had seen Jesus, certain particulars are found mentioned as
having been the subject of dispute,—viz., respecting the
resurrection,[1] and whether it were already past, and the day of the
Lord, whether it were nigh at hand[2] or not. Nay, the very exhortation
to "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called: which some professing, have erred concerning the
faith,"[3] is enough to show that from the very beginning, when, as
Celsus imagines, believers were few in number, there were certain
doctrines interpreted in different ways.[4]
In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of
heresies in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it,
saying that "when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they
were divided and split up into factions, each individual desiring to
have his own party;" and further, that "being thus separated through
their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one
name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only
thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are
determined in different ways by the various sects." In reply to which,
we say that heresies of different kinds have never originated from any
matter in which the principle involved was not important and beneficial
to human life. For since the science of medicine is useful and
necessary to the human race, and many are the points of dispute in it
respecting the manner of curing bodies, there are found, for this
reason, numerous heresies confessedly prevailing in the science of
medicine among the Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous
nations who profess to employ medicine. And, again, since philosophy
makes a profession of the truth, and promises a knowledge of existing
things with a view to the regulation of life, and endeavours to teach
what is advantageous to our race, and since the investigation of these
matters is attended with great differences of opinion,[5] innumerable
heresies have consequently sprung up in philosophy, some of which are
more celebrated than others. Even Judaism itself afforded a pretext for
the origination of heresies, in the different acceptation accorded to
the writings of Moses and those of the prophets. So, then, seeing
Christianity appeared an object of veneration to men, not to the more
servile class alone, as Celsus supposes, but to many among the Greeks
who were devoted to literary pursuits,[6] there necessarily originated
heresies,—not at all, however, as the result of faction and strife,
but through the earnest desire of many literary men to become
acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity. The consequence of which
was, that, taking in different acceptations those discourses which were
believed by all to be divine, there arose heresies, which received
their names from those individuals who admired, indeed, the origin of
Christianity, but who were led, in some way or other, by certain
plausible reasons, to discordant views. And yet no one would act
rationally in avoiding medicine because of its heresies; nor would he
who aimed at that which is seemly[7] entertain a hatred of philosophy,
and adduce its many heresies as a pretext for his antipathy. And so
neither are the sacred books of Moses and the prophets to be condemned
on account of the heresies in Judaism.
Now, if these arguments hold good, why should we not defend, in
the same way, the existence of heresies in Christianity? And respecting
these, Paul appears to me to speak in a very striking manner when he
says, "For there must be heresies among you, that they who are approved
may be made manifest among you."[8] For as that man is "approved" in
medicine who, on account of his experience in various (medical)
heresies, and his honest examination of the majority of them, has
selected the preferable system,—and as the great proficient in
philosophy is he who, after acquainting himself experimentally with the
various views, has given in his adhesion to the best,—so I would say
that the wisest Christian was he who had carefully studied the heresies
both of Judaism and Christianity. Whereas he who finds fault with
Christianity because of its heresies would find fault also with the
teaching of Socrates, from whose school have issued many others of
discordant views. Nay, the opinions of Plato might be chargeable with
error, on account of Aristotle's having separated from his school, and
founded a new one,—on which subject we have remarked in the preceding
book. But it appears to me that Celsus has become acquainted with
certain heresies which do not possess even the name of Jesus in common
with us. Perhaps he had heard of the sects called Ophites and Cainites,
or some others of a similar nature, which had departed in all points
from the teaching of Jesus. And yet surely this furnishes no ground for
a charge against the Christian doctrine.
After this he continues: "Their union is the more wonderful, the
more it can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet
rebellion is a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which
accrue from it, and the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes
which give stability to their faith." To this we answer, that our union
does thus rest upon a reason, or rather not upon a reason, but upon the
divine working,[1] so that its commencement was God's teaching men, in
the prophetical writings, to expect the advent of Christ, who was to be
the Saviour of mankind. For in so far as this point is not really
refuted (although it may seem to be by unbelievers), in the same
proportion is the doctrine commended as the doctrine of God, and Jesus
shown to be the Son of God both before and after His incarnation. I
maintain, moreover, that even after His incarnation, He is always found
by those who possess the acutest spiritual vision to be most God-like,
and to have really come down to us from God, and to have derived His
origin or subsequent development not from human wisdom, but from the
manifestation[2] of God within Him, who by His manifold wisdom and
miracles established Judaism first, and Christianity afterwards; and
the assertion that rebellion, and the advantages attending it, were the
originating causes of a doctrine which has converted and improved so
many men was effectually refuted.
But again, that it is not the fear of external enemies which
strengthens our union, is plain from the fact that this cause, by God's
will, has already, for a considerable time, ceased to exist. And it is
probable that the secure existence, so far as regards the world,
enjoyed by believers at present, will come to an end, since those who
calumniate Christianity in every way are again attributing the present
frequency of rebellion to the multitude of believers, and to their not
being persecuted by the authorities as in old times. For we have
learned from the Gospel neither to relax our efforts in days of peace,
and to give ourselves up to repose, nor, when the world makes war upon
us, to become cowards, and apostatize from the love of the God of all
things which is in Jesus Christ. And we clearly manifest the
illustrious nature of our origin, and do not (as Celsus imagines)
conceal it, when we impress upon the minds of our first converts a
contempt for idols, and images of all kinds, and, besides this, raise
their thoughts from the worship of created things instead of God, and
elevate them to the universal Creator; dearly showing Him to be the
subject of prophecy, both from the predictions regarding Him—of which
there are many—and from those traditions which have been carefully
investigated by such as are able intelligently to understand the
Gospels, and the declarations of the apostles.
"But what the legends are of every kind which we gather together,
or the terrors which we invent," as Celsus without proof asserts, he
who likes may show. I know not, indeed, what he means by "inventing
terrors," unless it be our doctrine of God as Judge, and of the
condemnation of men for their deeds, with the various proofs derived
partly from Scripture, partly from probable reason. And yet—for truth
is precious—Celsus says, at the close, "Forbid that either I, or
these, or any other individual should ever reject the doctrine
respecting the future punishment of the wicked and the reward of the
good!" What terrors, then, if you except the doctrine of punishment, do
we invent and impose upon mankind? And if he should reply that "we
weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources, and
trumpet them aloud, and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele
clash their cymbals in the ears of those who are being initiated in
their mysteries; "[3] we shall ask him in reply, "Erroneous opinions
from what ancient sources?" For, whether he refers to Grecian accounts,
which taught the existence of courts of justice under the earth, or
Jewish, which, among other things, predicted the life that follows the
present one; he will be unable to show that we who, striving to believe
on grounds of reason, regulate our lives in conformity with such
doctrines, have failed correctly to ascertain the truth.[4]
He wishes, indeed, to compare the articles of our faith to those
of the Egyptians; " among whom, as you approach their sacred edifices,
are to be seen splendid enclosures, and groves, and large and beautiful
gateways,[1] and wonderful temples, and magnificent tents around them,
and ceremonies of worship full of superstition and mystery; but when
you have entered, and passed within, the object of worship is seen to
be a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog!" Now, what is
the resemblance[2] between us and the splendours of Egyptian worship
which are seen by those who draw near their temples? And where is the
resemblance to those irrational animals which are worshipped within,
after you pass through the splendid gateways? Are our prophecies, and
the God of all things, and the injunctions against images,[3] objects
of reverence in the view of Celsus also, and Jesus Christ crucified,
the analogue to the worship of the irrational animal? But if he should
assert this—and I do not think that he will maintain anything else—we
shall reply that we have spoken in the preceding pages at greater
length in defence of those charges affecting Jesus, showing that what
appeared to have happened to Him in the capacity of His human nature,
was fraught with benefit to all men, and with salvation to the whole
world.
In the next place, referring to the statements of the Egyptians,
who talk loftily about irrational animals, and who assert that they are
a sort of symbols of God, or anything else which their prophets, so
termed, are accustomed to call them, Celsus says that "an impression is
produced in the minds of those who have learned these things; that they
have not been initiated in vain; "[4] while with regard to the truths
which are taught in our writings to those who have made progress in the
study of Christianity (through that which is called by Paul the gift
consisting in the "word of wisdom" through the Spirit, and in the "word
of knowledge" according to the Spirit), Celsus does not seem even to
have formed an idea,[5] judging not only from what he has already said,
but from what he subsequently adds in his attack upon the Christian
system, when he asserts that Christians "repel every wise man from the
doctrine of their faith, and invite only the ignorant and the vulgar;"
on which assertions we shall remark in due time, when we come to the
proper place.
He says, indeed, that "we ridicule the Egyptians, although they
present many by no means contemptible mysteries[6] for our
consideration, when they teach us that such rites are acts of worship
offered to eternal ideas, and not, as the multitude think, to ephemeral
animals; and that we are silly, because we introduce nothing nobler
than the goats and dogs of the Egyptian worship in our narratives about
Jesus." Now to this we reply, "Good sir,[7] (suppose that) you are
right in eulogizing the fact that the Egyptians present to view many by
no means contemptible mysteries, and obscure explanations about the
animals (worshipped) among them, you nevertheless do not act
consistently in accusing us as if you believed that we had nothing to
state which was worthy of consideration, but that all our doctrines
were contemptible and of no account, seeing we unfold s the narratives
concerning Jesus according to the ' wisdom of the word' to those who
are 'perfect' in Christianity. Regarding whom, as being competent to
understand the wisdom that is in Christianity, Paul says: 'We speak
wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world,
nor of the princes of this world, who come to nought, but we speak the
wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained
before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this
world knew.'"[9]
And we say to those who hold similar opinions to those of Celsus:
"Paul then, we are to suppose, had before his mind the idea of no
pre-eminent wisdom when he professed to speak wisdom among them that
are perfect?" Now, as he spoke with his customary boldness when in
making such a profession he said that he was possessed of no wisdom, we
shall say in reply: first of all examine the Epistles of him who utters
these words, and look carefully at the meaning of each expression in
them—say, in those to the Ephesians, and Colossians, and
Thessalonians, and Philippians, and Romans,—and show two things, both
that you understand Paul's words, and that you can demonstrate any of
them to be silly or foolish. For if any one give himself to their
attentive perusal, I am well assured either that he will be amazed at
the understanding of the man who can clothe great ideas in common
language; or if he be not amazed, he will only exhibit himself in a
ridiculous light, whether he simply state the meaning of the writer as
if he had comprehended it, or try to controvert and confute what he
only imagined that he understood!
And I have not yet spoken of the observance[1] of all that is
written in the Gospels, each one of which contains much doctrine
difficult to be understood, not merely by the multitude, but even by
certain of the more intelligent, including a very profound explanation
of the parables which Jesus delivered to "those without," while
reserving the exhibition of their full meaning, for those who had
passed beyond the stage of exoteric teaching, and who came to Him
privately in the house. And when he comes to understand it, he will
admire the reason why some are said to be "without," and others "in the
house." And again, who would not be filled with astonishment that is
able to comprehend the movements[3] of Jesus; ascending at one time a
mountain for the purpose of delivering certain discourses, or of
performing certain miracles, or for His own transfiguration, and
descending again to heal the sick and those who were unable to follow
Him whither His disciples went? But it is not the appropriate time to
describe at present the truly venerable and divine contents of the
Gospels, or the mind of Christ—that is, the wisdom and the
word—contained in the writings of Paul. But what we have said is
sufficient by way of answer to the unphilosophic sneers[4] of Celsus,
in Comparing the inner mysteries of the Church of God to the cats, and
apes, and crocodiles, and goats, and dogs of Egypt.
But this low jester[5] Celsus, omitting no species of mockery and
ridicule which can be employed against us, mentions in his treatise the
Dioscuri, and Hercules, and AEsculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed
by the Greeks to have become gods after being men, and says that "we
cannot bear to call such beings gods, because they were at first
men,[6] and yet they manifested many noble qualifies, which were
displayed for the benefit of mankind, while we assert that Jesus was
seen after His death by His own followers;" and he brings against us an
additional charge, as if we said that "He was seen indeed, but was
only a shadow!" Now to this we reply, that it was very artful of
Celsus not here clearly to indicate that he did not regard these beings
as gods, for he was afraid of the opinion of those who might peruse his
treatise, and who might suppose him to be an atheist; whereas, if he
had paid respect to what appeared to him to be the truth, he would not
have feigner to regard them as gods.[7] Now to either of the
allegations we are ready with an answer. Let us, accordingly, to those
who do not regard them as gods reply as follows: These beings, then,
are not gods at all; but agreeably to the view of those who think that
the soul of man perishes immediately (after death), the souls of these
men also perished; or according to the opinion of those who say that
the soul continues to subsist or is immortal, these men continue to
exist or are immortal, and they are not gods but heroes,—or not even
heroes, but simply souls. If, then, on the one hand, you suppose them
not to exist, we shall have to prove the doctrine of the soul's
immortality, which is to us a doctrine of pre-eminent importance;[8]
if, on the other hand, they do exist, we have still to prove[9] the
doctrine of immortality, not only by what the Greeks have so well said
regarding it, but also in a manner agreeable to the teaching of Holy
Scripture. And we shall demonstrate that it is impossible for those who
were polytheists during their lives to obtain a better country and
position after their departure from this world, by quoting the
histories that are related of them, in which is recorded the great
dissoluteness of Hercules, and his effeminate bondage with Omphale,
together with the statements regarding AEsculapius, that their Zeus
struck him dead by a thunderbolt. And of the Dioscuri, it will be said
that they die often—
"At one time live on alternate days, and at another
Die, and obtain honour equally with the gods."[10]
How, then, can they reasonably imagine that one of these is to be regarded as a god or a hero?
But we, in proving the facts related of our Jesus from the
prophetic Scriptures, and comparing afterwards His history with them,
demonstrate that no dissoluteness on His part is recorded. For even
they who conspired against Him, and who sought false witnesses to aid
them, did not find even any plausible grounds for advancing a false
charge against Him, so as to accuse Him of licentiousness; but His
death was indeed the result of a conspiracy, and bore no resemblance to
the death of AEsculapius by lightning. And what is there that is
venerable in the madman Dionysus, and his female garments, that he
should be worshipped as a god? And if they who would defend such beings
betake themselves to allegorical interpretations, we must examine each
individual instance, and ascertain whether it is well founded,[1] and
also in each particular case, whether those beings can have a real
existence, and are deserving of respect and worship who were torn by
the Titans, and cast down from their heavenly throne. Whereas our
Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop[2]—for I will take
the word that Celsus employs—did really appear, and Celsus makes a
false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a
shadow. And let the statements of their histories and that of Jesus be
carefully compared together. Will Celsus have the former to be true,
but the latter, although recorded by eye-witnesses who showed by their
acts that they clearly understood the nature of what they had seen, and
who manifested their state of mind by what they cheerfully underwent
for the sake of His Gospel, to be inventions? Now, who is there that,
desiring to act always in conformity with right reason, would yield his
assent at random[3] to what is related of the one, but would rush to
the history of Jesus, and without examination refuse to believe what is
recorded of Him?[4]
And again, when it is said of AEsculapius that a great multitude
both of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently
seen, and still see, no mere phantom, but AEsculapius himself, healing
and doing good, and foretelling the future; Celsus requires us to
believe this, and finds no fault with the believers in Jesus, when we
express our belief in such stories, but when we give our assent to the
disciples, and eye-wit-nesses of the miracles of Jesus, who clearly
manifest the honesty of their convictions (because we see their
guilelessness, as far as it is possible to see the conscience revealed
in writing), we are called by him a set of "silly" individuals,
although he cannot demonstrate that an incalculable[5] number, as he
asserts, of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge the existence of
AEsculapius; while we, if we deem this a matter of importance, can
clearly show a countless multitude of Greeks and Barbarians who
acknowledge the existence of Jesus. And some give evidence of their
having received through this faith a marvellous power by the cures
which they perform, revoking no other name over those who need their
help than that of the God of all things, and of Jesus, along with a
mention of His history. For by these means we too have seen many
persons freed from grievous calamities, and from distractions of
mind,[6] and madness, and countless other ills, which could be cured
neither by men nor devils.
Now, in order to grant that there did exist a healing spirit
named AEsculapius, who used to cure the bodies of men, I would say to
those who are astonished at such an occurrence, or at the prophetic
knowledge of Apollo, that since the cure of bodies is a thing
indifferent,[7] and a matter within the reach not merely of the
good,[8] but also of the bad; and as the foreknowledge of the future is
also a thing indifferent—for the possessor of foreknowledge does not
necessarily manifest the possession of virtue—you must show that they
who practise healing or who forefell the future are in no respect
wicked, but exhibit a perfect pattern of virtue, and are not far from
being regarded as gods. But they will not be able to show that they are
virtuous who practise the art of healing, or who are gifted with
foreknowledge, seeing many who are not fit to live are related to have
been healed; and these, too, persons whom, as leading improper lives,
no wise physician would wish to heal. And in the responses of the
Pythian oracle also you may find some injunctions which are not in
accordance with reason, two of which we will adduce on the present
occasion; viz., when it gave commandment that Cleomedes[9]—the boxer,
I suppose—should be honoured with divine honours, seeing some great
importance or other attaching to his pugilistic skill, but did not
confer either upon Pythagoras or upon Socrates the honours which it
awarded to pugilism; and also when it called Archilochus "the servant
of the Muses"—a man who employed his poetic powers upon topics of the
most wicked and licentious nature, and whose public character was
dissolute and impure—and entitled him "pious,"[10] in respect of his
being the servant of the Muses, who are deemed to be goddesses! Now I
am inclined to think that no one would assert that he was a "pious" man
who was not adorned with all moderation and virtue, or that a
decorous[11] man would utter such expressions as are contained in the
unseemly[12] iambics of Archilochus. And if nothing that is divine in
itself is shown to belong either to the healing skill of AEsculapius or
the prophetic power of Apollo, how could any one, even were I to grant
that the facts are as alleged, reasonably worship them as pure
divinities?—and especially when the prophetic spirit of Apollo, pure
from any body of earth, secretly enters through the private parts the
person of her who is called the priestess, as she is seated at the
mouth of the Pythian cave![1] Whereas regarding Jesus and His power we
have no such notion; for the body which was born of the Virgin was
composed of human material, and capable of receiving human wounds and
death.
Let us see what Celsus says next, when he adduces from history
marvellous occurrences, which in themselves seem to be incredible, but
which are not discredited by him, so far at least as appears from his
words. And, in the first place, regarding Aristeas of Proconnesus, of
whom he speaks as follows: "Then, with respect to Aristeas of
Proconnesus, who disappeared from among men in a manner so indicative
of divine intervention,[2] and who showed himself again in so
unmistakeable a fashion, and on many subsequent occasions visited many
parts of the world, and announced marvellous events, and whom Apollo
enjoined the inhabitants of Metapontium to regard as a god, no one
considers him to be a god." This account he appears to have taken from
Pindar and Herodotus. It will be sufficient, however, at present to
quote the statement of the latter writer from the fourth book of his
histories, which is to the following effect: "Of what country Aristeas,
who made these verses, was, has already been mentioned, and I shall now
relate the account I heard of him in Proconnesus and Cyzicus. They say
that Aristeas, who was inferior to none of the citizens by birth,
entering into a fuller's shop in Proconnesus, died suddenly, and that
the fuller, having closed his workshop, went to acquaint the relatives
of the deceased. When the report had spread through the city that
Aristeas was dead, a certain Cyzi-cenian, arriving from Artace, fell
into a dispute with those who made the report, affirming that he had
met and conversed with him on his way to Cyzicus, and he vehemently
disputed the truth of the report; but the relations of the deceased
went to the fuller's shop, taking with them what was necessary for the
purpose of carrying the body away; but when the house was opened,
Aristeas was not to be seen, either dead or alive. They say that
afterwards, in the seventh year, he appeared in Proconnesus, composed
those verses which by the Greeks are now called Arimaspian, and having
composed them, disappeared a second time. Such is the story current in
these cities. But these things I know happened to the Metapontines in
Italy 340 years after the second disappearance of Aristeas, as I
discovered by computation in Proconnesus and Metapontium. The
Metapontines say that Aristeas himself, having appeared in their
country, exhorted them to erect an altar to Apollo, and to place near
it a statue beating the name of Aristeas the Proconnesian; for he said
that Apollo had visited their country only of all the Italians, and
that he himself, who was now Aristeas, accompanied him; and that when
he accompanied the god he was a crow; and after saying this he
vanished. And the Metapontines say they sent to Delphi to inquire of
the god what the apparition of the man meant; but the Pythian bade them
obey the apparition, and if they obeyed it would conduce to their
benefit. They accordingly, having received this answer, fulfilled the
injunctions. And now, a statue beating the name of Aristeas is placed
near the image of Apollo, and around it laurels are planted: the image
is placed in the public square. Thus much concerning Aristeas."[3]
Now, in answer to this account of Aristeas, we have to say, that
if Celsus had adduced it as history, without signifying his own assent
to its truth, it is in a different way that we should have met his
argument. But since he asserts that he "disappeared through the
intervention of the divinity," and "showed himself again in an
unmistakeable manner," and "visited many parts of the world," and "made
marvellous announcements;" and, moreover, that there was "an oracle of
Apollo, enjoining the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god," he
gives the accounts relating to him as upon his own authority, and with
his full assent. And (this being the case), we ask, How is it possible
that, while supposing the marvels related by the disciples of Jesus
regarding their Master to be wholly fictitious, and finding fault with
those who believe them, you, O Celsus, do not regard these stories of
yours to be either products of jugglery[4] or inventions? And how,[5]
while charging others with an irrational belief in the marvels recorded
of Jesus, can you show yourself justified in giving credence to such
statement as the above, without producing some proof or evidence of the
alleged occurrences having taken place? Or do Herodotus and Pindar
appear to you to speak the truth, while they who have made it their
concern to die for the doctrine of Jesus, and who have left to their
successors writings so remarkable on the truths which they believed,
entered for the sake of "fictions" (as you consider them), and "myths,"
and "juggleries," upon a struggle which entails a life of danger and a
death of violence? Place yourself, then, as a neutral party, between
what is related of Aristeas and what is recorded of Jesus, and see
whether, from the result, and from the benefits which have accrued from
the reformation of morals, and to the worship of the God who is over
all things, it is not allowable to conclude that we must believe the
events recorded of Jesus not to have happened without the divine
intervention, but that this was not the case with the story of Aristeas
the Proconnesian.
For with what purpose in view did Providence accomplish the
marvels related of Aristeas? And to confer what benefit upon the human
race did such remarkable events, as you regard them, take place? You
cannot answer. But we, when we relate the events of the history of
Jesus, have no ordinary defence to offer for their occurrence;—this,
viz., that God desired to commend the doctrine of Jesus as a doctrine
which was to save mankind, and which was based, indeed, upon the
apostles as foundations of the rising(1) edifice of Christianity, but
which increased in magnitude also in the succeeding ages, in which not
a few cures are wrought in the name of Jesus, and certain other
manifestations of no small moment have taken place. Now what sort of
person is Apollo, who enjoined the Metapon-tines to treat Aristeas as a
god? And with what object does he do this? And what advantage was he
procuring to the Metapontines from this divine worship, if they were to
regard him as a god, who a little ago was a mortal? And yet the
recommendations of Apollo (viewed by us as a demon who has obtained the
honour of libation and sacrificial odours(2)) regarding this Aristeas
appear to you to be worthy of consideration; while those of the God of
all things, and of His holy angels, made known beforehand through the
prophets—not after the birth of Jesus, but before He appeared among
men—do not stir you up to admiration, not merely of the prophets who
received the Divine Spirit, but of Him also who was the object of their
predictions, whose entrance into life was so clearly predicted many
years beforehand by numerous prophets, that the whole Jewish people who
were hanging in expectation of the coming of Him who was looked for,
did, after the advent of Jesus, fall into a keen dispute with each
other; and that a great multitude of them acknowledged Christ, and
believed Him to be the object of prophecy, while others did not believe
in Him, but, despising the meekness of those who, on account of the
teaching of Jesus, were unwilling to cause even the most trifling
sedition, dared to inflict on Jesus those cruelties which His disciples
have so truthfully and candidly recorded, without secretly omitting
from their marvellous history of Him what seems to the multitude to
bring disgrace upon the doctrine of Christianity. But both Jesus
Himself and His disciples desired that His followers should believe not
merely in His Godhead and miracles, as if He had not also been a
partaker of human nature, and had assumed the human flesh which
"lusteth against the Spirit;"(3) but they saw also that the power which
had descended into human nature, and into the midst of human miseries,
and which had assumed a human soul and body, contributed through faith,
along with its divine elements, to the salvation of believers,(4) when
they see that from Him there began the union of the divine with the
human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine,
might rise to be divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who not
only believe, but s enter upon the life which Jesus taught, and which
elevates to friendship with God and communion with Him every one who
lives according to the precepts of Jesus.
According to Celsus, then, Apollo wished the Metapontines to
treat Aristeas as a god. But as the Metapontines considered the
evidence in favour of Aristeas being a man—and probably not a virtuous
one—to be stronger than the declaration of the oracle to the effect
that he was a god or worthy of divine honours, they for that reason
would not obey Apollo, and consequently no one regarded Aristeas as a
god. But with respect to Jesus we would say that, as it was of
advantage to the human race to accept him as the Son of God—God come
in a human soul and body—and as this did not seem to be advantageous
to the gluttonous appetites(6) of the demons which love bodies, and to
those who deem them to be gods on that account, the demons that are on
earth (which are supposed to be gods by those who are not instructed in
the nature of demons), and also their worshippers, were desirous to
prevent the spread of the doctrine of Jesus; for they saw that the
libations and odours in which they greedily delighted were being swept
away by the prevalence of the instructions of Jesus. But the God who
sent Jesus dissipated all the conspiracies of the demons, and made the
Gospel of Jesus to prevail throughout the whole world for the
conversion and reformation of men, and caused Churches to be everywhere
established in opposition to those of superstitious and licentious and
wicked men; for such is the character of the multitudes who constitute
the citizens(1) in the assemblies of the various cities. Whereas the
Churches of God which are instructed by Christ, when carefully
contrasted with the assemblies of the districts in which they are
situated, are as beacons(2) in the world; for who would not admit that
even the inferior members of the Church, and those who in comparison
with the better are less worthy, are nevertheless more excellent than
many of those who belong to the assemblies in the different districts?
For the Church(3) of God, e.g., which is at Athens, is a meek and
stable body, as being one which desires to please God, who is over all
things; whereas the assembly(4) of the Athenians is given to sedition,
and is not at all to be compared to the Church of God in that city. And
you may say the same thing of the Church of God at Corinth, and of the
assembly of the Corinthian people; and also of the Church of God at
Alexandria, and of the assembly of the people of Alexandria. And if he
who hears this be a candid man, and one who investigates things with a
desire to ascertain the truth, he will be filled with admiration of Him
who not only conceived the design, but also was able to secure in all
places the establishment of Churches of God alongside s of the
assemblies of the people in each city. In like manner, also, in
comparing the council(6) of the Church of God with the council in any
city, you would find that certain councillors(7) of the Church are
worthy to rule in the city of God, if there be any such city in the
whole world;(8) whereas the councillors in all other places exhibit in
their characters no quality worthy of the conventional(9) superiority
which they appear to enjoy over their fellow-citizens. And so, too, you
must compare the ruler of the Church in each city with the ruler of the
people of the city, in order to observe that even amongst those
councillors and rulers of the Church of God who come very far short of
their duty, and who lead more indolent lives than others who are more
energetic, it is nevertheless possible to discover a general
superiority in what relates to the progress of virtue over the
characters of the councillors and rulers in the various cities.(10)
Now if these things be so, why should it not be consistent with
reason to hold with regard to Jesus, who was able to effect results so
great, that there dwelt in Him no ordinary divinity? while this was not
the case either with the Proconnesian Aristeas (although Apollo would
have him regarded as a god), or with the other individuals enumerated
by Celsus when he says, "No one regards Abaris the Hyperborean as a
god, who was possessed of such power as to be borne along like an arrow
from a bow."(11) For with what object did the deity who bestowed upon
this Hyperborean Abaris the power of being carried along like an arrow,
confer upon him such a gift? Was it that the human race might be
benefited thereby,(12) or did he himself obtain any advantage from the
possession of such a power?—always supposing it to be conceded that
these statements are not wholly inventions, but that the thing actually
happened through the co-operation of some demon. But if it be recorded
that my Jesus was received up into glory,(13) I perceive the divine
arrangement(14) in such an act, viz., because God, who brought this to
pass, commends in this way the Teacher to those who witnessed it, in
order that as men who are contending not for human doctrine, but for
divine teaching, they may devote themselves as far as possible to the
God who is over all, and may do all things in order to please Him, as
those who are to receive in the divine judgment the reward of the good
or evil which they have wrought in this life.
But as Celsus next mentions the case of the Clazomenian,
subjoining to the story about him this remark, "Do they not report that
his soul frequently quitted his body, and flitted about in an
incorporeal form? and yet men did not regard him as a god," we have to
answer that probably certain wicked demons contrived that such
statements should be committed to writing (for I do not believe that
they contrived that such a thing should actually take place), in order
that the predictions regarding Jesus, and the discourses ut- tered by
Him, might either be evil spoken of, as inventions like these, or might
excite no surprise, as not being more remarkable than other
occurrences. But my Jesus said regarding His own soul (which was
separated from the body, not by virtue of any human necessity, but by
the miraculous power which was given Him also for this purpose): "No
one taketh my life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."(1) For as He had
power to lay it down, He laid it down when He said, "Father, why hast
Thou forsaken Me? And when He had cried with a loud voice, He gave up
the ghost,"(2) anticipating the public executioners of the crucified,
who break the legs of the victims, and who do so in order that their
punishment may not be further prolonged. And He "took His life," when
He manifested Himself to His disciples, having in their presence
foretold to the unbelieving Jews, "Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up again,"(3) and "He spake this of the temple of
His body;" the prophets, moreover, having predicted such a result in
many other passages of their writings, and in this, "My flesh also
shall rest in hope: for Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither
wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption."(4)
Celsus, however, shows that he has read a good many Grecian
histories, when he quotes further what is told of Cleomedes of
Astypalaea, "who," he relates, "entered into an ark, and although shut
up within it, was not found therein, but through some arrangement of
the divinity, flew out, when certain persons had cut open the ark in
order to apprehend him." Now this story, if an invention, as it appears
to be, cannot be compared with what is related of Jesus, since in the
lives of such men there is found no indication of their possessing the
divinity which is ascribed to them; whereas the divinity of Jesus is
established both by the existence of the Churches of the saved,(5) and
by the prophecies uttered concerning Him, and by the cures wrought in
His name, and by the wisdom and knowledge which are in Him, and the
deeper truths which are discovered by those who know how to ascend from
a simple faith, and to investigate the meaning which lies in the divine
Scriptures, agreeably to the injunctions of Jesus, who said, "Search
the Scriptures,"(6) and to the wish of Paul, who taught that "we ought
to know how to answer every man;"(7) nay, also of him who said, "Be
ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh of you a reason
of the faiths that is in you."(9) If he wishes to have it conceded,
however, that it is not a fiction, let him show with what object this
supernatural power made him, through some arrangement of the divinity,
flee from the ark. For if he will adduce any reason worthy of
consideration, and point out any purpose worthy of God in conferring
such a power on Cleomedes, we will decide on the answer which we ought
to give; but if he fail to say anything convincing on the point,
clearly because no reason can be discovered, then we shall either speak
slightingly of the story to those who have not accepted it, and charge
it with being false, or we shall say that some demoniac power, casting
a glamour over the eyes, produced, in the case of the Astypalaean, a
result like that which is produced by the performers of juggling
tricks,(10) while Celsus thinks that with respect to him he has spoken
like an oracle, when he said that "by some divine arrangement he flew
away from the ark."
I am, however, of opinion that these individuals are the only
instances with which Celsus was acquainted. And yet, that he might
appear voluntarily to pass by other similar cases, he says, "And one
might name many others of the same kind." Let it be granted, then, that
many such persons have existed who conferred no benefit upon the human
race: what would each one of their acts be found to amount to in
comparison with the work of Jesus, and the miracles related of Him, of
which we have already spoken at considerable length? He next imagines
that, "in worshipping him who," as he says, "was taken prisoner and put
to death, we are acting like the Getae who worship Zamolxis, and the
Cilicians who worship Mopsus, and the Acarnanians who pay divine
honours to Amphilochus, and like the Thebans who do the same to
Amphiaraus, and the Lebadians to Trophonius." Now in these instances we
shall prove that he has compared us to the foregoing without good
grounds. For these different tribes erected temples and statues to
those individuals above enumerated, whereas we have refrained from
offering to the Divinity honour by any such means (seeing they are
adapted rather to demons, which are somehow fixed in a certain place
which they prefer to any other, or which take up their dwell- ing, as
it were, after being removed (from one place to another) by certain
rites and incantations), and are lost in reverential wonder at Jesus,
who has recalled our minds from all sensible things, as being not only
corruptible, but destined to corruption, and elevated them to honour
the God who is over all with prayers and a righteous life, which we
offer to Him as being intermediate between the nature of the uncreated
and that of all created things,(1) and who bestows upon us the benefits
which come from the Father, and who as High Priest conveys our prayers
to the supreme God.
But I should like, in answer to him who for some unknown reason
advances such statements as the above, to make in a conversational
way(2) some such remarks as the following, which seem not inappropriate
to him. Are then those persons whom you have mentioned nonentities, and
is there no power in Lebadea connected with Trophonius, nor in Thebes
with the temple of Amphiaraus, nor in Acarnania with Amphilochus, nor
in Cilicia with Mopsus? Or is there in such persons some being, either
a demon, or a hero, or even a god, working works which are beyond the
reach of man? For if he answer that there is nothing either demoniacal
or divine about these individuals more than others, then let him at
once make known his own opinion, as being that of an Epicurean, and of
one who does not hold the same views with the Greeks, and who neither
recognises demons nor worships gods as do the Greeks; and let it be
shown that it was to no purpose that he adduced the instances
previously enumerated (as if he believed them to be true), together
with those which he adds in the following pages. But if he will assert
that the persons spoken of are either demons, or heroes, or even gods,
let him notice that he will establish by what he has admitted a result
which he does not desire, viz., that Jesus also was some such being;
for which reason, too, he was able to demonstrate to not a few that He
had come down from God to visit the human race. And if he once admit
this, see whether he will not be forced to confess that He is mightier
than those individuals with whom he classed Him, seeing none of the
latter forbids the offering of honour to the others; while He, having
confidence in Himself, because He is more powerful than all those
others, forbids them to be received as divine(3) because they are
wicked demons, who have taken possession of places on earth, through
inability to rise to the purer and diviner region, whither the
grossnesses of earth and its countless evils cannot reach.
But as he next introduces the case of the favourite of Adrian (I
refer to the accounts regarding the youth Antinous, and the honours
paid him by the inhabitants of the city of Antinous in Egypt), and
imagines that the honour paid to him falls little short of that which
we render to Jesus, let us show in what a spirit of hostility this
statement is made. For what is there in common between a life lived
among the favourites of Adrian, by one who did not abstain even from
unnatural lusts, and that of the venerable Jesus, against whom even
they who brought countless other charges, and who told so many
falsehoods, were not able to allege that He manifested, even in the
slightest degree, any tendency to what was licentious?(4) Nay, further,
if one were to investigate, in a spirit of truth and impartiality, the
stories relating to Antinous, he would find that it was due to the
magical arts and rites of the Egyptians that there was even the
appearance of his performing anything (marvellous) in the city which
bears his name, and that too only after his decease,—an effect which
is said to have been produced in other temples by the Egyptians, and
those who are skilled in the arts which they practise. For they set up
in certain places demons claiming prophetic or healing power, and which
frequently torture those who seem to have committed any mistake about
ordinary kinds of food, or about touching the dead body of a man, that
they may have the appearance of alarming the uneducated multitude. Of
this nature is the being that is considered to be a god in Antinoopolis
in Egypt, whose (reputed) virtues are the lying inventions of some who
live by the gain derived therefrom;(5) while others, deceived by the
demon placed there, and others again convicted by a weak conscience,
actually think that they are paying a divine penalty inflicted by
Antinous. Of such a nature also are the mysteries which they perform,
and the seeming predictions which they utter. Far different from such
are those of Jesus. For it was no company of sorcerers, paying court to
a king or ruler at his bidding, who seemed to have made him a god; but
the Architect of the universe Himself, in keeping with the marvellously
persuasive power of His words,(6) commended Him as worthy of honour,
not only to those men who were well disposed, but to demons also, and
other unseen powers, which even at the present time show that they
either fear the name of Jesus as that of a being of superior power, or
reverentially accept Him as their legal ruler.[1] For if the
commendation had not been given Him by God, the demons would not have
withdrawn from those whom they had assailed, in obedience to the mere
mention of His name.
The Egyptians, then, having been taught to worship Antinous,
will, if you compare him with Apollo or Zeus, endure such a comparison,
Antinous being magnified in their estimation through being classed with
these deities; for Celsus is clearly convicted of falsehood when he
says, "that they will not endure his being compared with Apollo or
Zeus." Whereas Christians (who have learned that their eternal life
consists in knowing the only true God, who is over all, and Jesus
Christ, whom He has sent; and who have learned also that all the gods
of the heathen are greedy demons, which flit around sacrifices and
blood, and other sacrificial accompaniments,[2] in order to deceive
those who have not taken refuge with the God who is over all, but that
the divine and holy angels of God are of a different nature and will[3]
from all the demons on earth, and that they are known to those
exceedingly few persons who have carefully and intelligently
investigated these matters) will not endure a comparison to be made
between them and Apollo or Zeus, or any being worshipped with odour and
blood and sacrifices; some of them, so acting from their extreme
simplicity, not being able to give a reason for their conduct, but
sincerely observing the precepts which they have received; others,
again, for reasons not to be lightly regarded, nay, even of a profound
description, and (as a Greek would say) drawn from the inner nature of
things;[4] and amongst the latter of these God is a frequent subject of
conversation, and those who are honoured by God, through His
only-begotten Word, with participation in His divinity, and therefore
also in His name. They speak much, too, both regarding the angels of
God and those who are opposed to the truth, but have been deceived; and
who, in consequence of being deceived, call them gods or angels of God,
or good demons, or heroes who have become such by the transference into
them of a good human soul.[5] And such Christians will also show, that
as in philosophy there are many who appear to be in possession of the
truth, who have yet either deceived themselves by plausible arguments,
or by rashly assenting to what was brought forward and discovered by
others; so also, among those souls which exist apart from bodies, both
angels and demons, there are some which have been induced by plausible
reasons to declare themselves gods. And because it was impossible that
the reasons of such things could be discovered by men with perfect
exactness, it was deemed safe that no mortal should entrust himself to
any being as to God, with the exception of Jesus Christ, who is, as it
were, the Ruler over all things, and who both beheld these weighty
secrets, and made them known to a few.
The belief, then, in Antinous,[5] or any other such person,
whether among the Egyptians or the Greeks, is, so to speak,
unfortunate; while the belief in Jesus would seem to be either a
fortunate one, or the result of thorough investigation, having the
appearance of the former to the multitude, and of the latter to
exceedingly few.[7] And when I speak of a certain belief being, as the
multitude would call it, unfortunate, I in such a case refer the cause
to God, who knows the reasons of the various fates allotted to each one
who enters human life. The Greeks, moreover, will admit that even
amongst those who are considered to be most largely endowed with
wisdom, good fortune has had much to do, as in the choice of teachers
of one kind rather than another, and in meeting with a better class of
instructors (there being teachers who taught the most opposite
doctrines), and in being brought up in better circumstances; for the
bringing up of many has been amid surroundings of such a kind, that
they were prevented from ever receiving any idea of better things, but
constantly passed their life, from their earliest youth, either as the
favourites of licentious men or of tyrants, or in some other wretched
condition which forbade the soul to look upwards. And the causes of
these varied fortunes, according to all probability, are to be found in
the reasons of providence, though it is not easy for men to ascertain
these; but I have said what I have done by way of digression from the
main body of my subject, on account of the proverb, that "such is the
power of faith, because it seizes that which first presents itself."[8]
For it was necessary, owing to the different methods of education, to
speak of the differences of belief among men, some of whom are more,
others less fortunate in their belief; and from this to proceed to show
that what is termed good or bad fortune would appear to contribute even
in the case of the most talented, to their appearing to be more fully
endowed with reason and to give their assent on grounds of reason to
the majority of human opinions. But enough on these points.
We must notice the remarks which Celsus next makes, when he says
to us, that "faith, having taken possession of our minds, makes us
yield the assent which we give to the doctrine of Jesus;" for of a
truth it is faith which does produce such an assent. Observe, however,
whether that faith does not of itself exhibit what is worthy of praise,
seeing we entrust ourselves to the God who is over all, acknowledging
our gratitude to Him who has led us to such a faith, and declaring that
He could not have attempted or accomplished such a result without the
divine assistance. And we have confidence also in the intentions of the
writers of the Gospels, observing their piety and conscientiousness,
manifested in their writings, which contain nothing that is spurious,
or deceptive,[1] or false, or cunning; for it is evident to us that
souls unacquainted with those artifices which are taught by the cunning
sophistry of the Greeks (which is characterized by great plausibility
and acuteness), and by the kind of rhetoric in vogue in the courts of
justice, would not have been able thus to invent occurrences which are
fitted of themselves to conduct to faith, and to a life in keeping with
faith. And I am of opinion that it was on this account that Jesus
wished to employ such persons as teachers of His doctrines, viz., that
there might be no ground for any suspicion of plausible sophistry, but
that it might clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding,
that the guileless purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked
with great simplicity, was deemed worthy of being accompanied by a
diviner power, which accomplished far more than it seemed possible
could be accomplished by a periphrasis of words, and a weaving of
sentences, accompanied by all the distinctions of Grecian art.
But observe whether the principles of our faith, harmonizing
with the general ideas implanted in our minds at birth, do not produce
a change upon those who listen candidly to its statements; for although
a perverted view of things, with the aid of much instruction to the
same effect, has been able to implant in the minds of the multitude the
belief that images are gods, and that things made of gold, and silver,
and ivory, and stone are deserving of worship, yet common sense[2]
forbids the supposition that God is at all a piece of corruptible
matter, or is honoured when made to assume by men a form embodied in
dead matter, fashioned according to some image or symbol of His
appearance. And therefore we say at once of images that they are not
gods, and of such creations (of art) that they are not to be compared
with the Creator, but are small in contrast with the God who is over
all, and who created, and upholds, and governs the universe. And the
rational soul recognising, as it were, its relationship (to the
divine), at once rejects what it for a time supposed to be gods, and
resumes its natural love[3] for its Creator; and because of its
affection towards Him, receives Him also who first presented these
truths to all nations through the disciples whom He had appointed, and
whom He sent forth, furnished with divine power and authority, to
proclaim the doctrine regarding God and His kingdom.
But since he has charged us, I know not how often already, "with
regarding this Jesus, who was but a mortal body, as a God, and with
supposing that we act piously in so doing," it is superfluous to say
any more in answer to this, as a great deal has been said in the
preceding pages. And yet let those who make this charge understand that
He whom we regard and believe to have been from the beginning God, and
the Son of God, is the very Logos, and the very Wisdom, and the very
Truth; and with respect to His mortal body, and the human soul which it
contained, we assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but
by their unity and intermixture,[4] they received the highest powers,
and after participating in His divinity, were changed into God. And if
any one should feel a difficulty at our saying this regarding His body,
let him attend to what is said by the Greeks regarding matter, which,
properly speaking, being without qualities, receives such as the
Creator desires to invest it with, and which frequently divests itself
of those which it formerly possessed, and assumes others of a different
and higher kind. And if these opinions be correct, what is there
wonderful in this, that the mortal quality of the body of Jesus, if the
providence of God has so willed it, should have been changed into one
that was ethereal and divine?[5]
Celsus, then, does not speak as a good reasoner,(1) when he
compares the mortal flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone,
asserting that the former is more liable to corruption than the latter.
For, to speak correctly, that which is incorruptible is not more free
from corruption than another thing which is incorruptible, nor that
which is corruptible more liable to corruption than another corruptible
thing. But, admitting that there are degrees of corruptibility, we can
say in answer, that if it is possible for the matter which underlies
all qualities to exchange some of them, how should it be impossible for
the flesh of Jesus also to exchange qualities, and to become such as it
was proper for a body to be which had its abode in the ether and the
regions above it, and possessing no longer the infirmities belonging to
the flesh, and those properties which Celsus terms "impurities," and in
so terming them, speaks unlike a philosopher? For that which is
properly impure, is so because of its wickedness. Now the nature of
body is not impure; for in so far as it is bodily nature, it does not
possess vice, which is the generative principle of impurity. But, as he
had a suspicion of the answer which we would return, he says with
respect to the change of the body of Jesus, "Well, after he has laid
aside these qualities, he will be a God:" (and if so), why not rather
Aesculapius, and Dionysus, and Hercules? To which we reply, "What great
deed has AEsculapius, or Dionysus, or Hercules wrought?" And what
individuals will they be able to point out as having been improved in
character, and made better by their words and lives, so that they may
make good their claim to be gods? For let us peruse the many narratives
regarding them, and see whether they were free from licentiousness or
injustice, or folly, or cowardice. And if nothing of that kind be found
in them, the argument of Celsus might have force, which places the
forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus. But if it is certain
that, although some things are reported of them as reputable, they are
recorded, nevertheless, to have done innumerable things which are
contrary to right reason, how could you any longer say, with any show
of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became
gods rather than Jesus?
He next says of us, that "we ridicule those who worship Jupiter,
because his tomb is pointed out in the island of Crete; and yet we
worship him who rose from the tomb,(2) although ignorant of the
grounds(3) on which the Cretans observe such a custom." Observe now
that he thus undertakes the defence of the Cretans, and of Jupiter, and
of his tomb, alluding obscurely to the allegorical notions, in
conformity with which the myth regarding Jupiter is said to have been
invented; while he assails us who acknowledge that our Jesus has been
buried, indeed, but who maintain that He has also been raised from the
tomb,—a statement which the Cretans have not yet made regarding
Jupiter. But since he appears to admit that the tomb of Jupiter is in
Crete, when he says that "we are ignorant of the grounds on which the
Cretans observe such a custom," we reply that Callimachus the Cyrenian,
who had read innumerable poetic compositions, and nearly the whole of
Greek history, was not acquainted with any allegorical meaning which
was contained in the stories about Jupiter and his tomb; and
accordingly he accuses the Cretans in his hymn addressed to Jupiter, in
the words:(4)—
"The Cretans are always liars: for thy tomb, O king,
The Cretans have reared; and yet thou didst not die,
For thou ever livest."
Now he who said, "Thou didst not die, for thou ever livest," in denying that Jupiter's tomb was in Crete, records nevertheless that in Jupiter there was the beginning of death.(5) But birth upon earth is the beginning of death. And his words run:—
"And Rhea bore thee among the Parrhasians;"—
whereas he ought to have seen, after denying that the birth of Jupiter took place in Crete because of his tomb, that it was quite congruous with his birth in Arcadia that he who was born should also die. And the following is the manner in which Callimachus speaks of these things: "O Jupiter, some say that thou weft born on the mountains of Ida, others in Arcadia. Which of them, O father, have lied? The Cretans are always liars," etc. Now it is Celsus who made us discuss these topics, by the unfair manner in which he deals with Jesus, in giving his assent to what is related about His death and burial, but regarding as an invention His resurrection from the dead, although this was not only foretold by innumerable prophets, but many proofs also were given of His having appeared after death.
After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the
doctrine of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered
Christians, not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the
more ignorant class, and asserts that "the following are the rules laid
down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is
wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if
there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish
persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging
that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show
that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the
mean, and the stupid, with women and children."(1) In reply to which,
we say that, as if, while Jesus teaches continence, and says,
"Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath already
committed adultery with her in his heart," one were to behold a few of
those who are deemed to be Christians living licentiously, he would
most justly blame them for living contrary to the teaching of Jesus,
but would act most unreasonably if he were to charge the Gospel with
their censurable conduct; so, if he found nevertheless that the
doctrine of the Christians invites men to wisdom, the blame then must
remain with those who rest in their own ignorance, and who utter, not
what Celsus relates (for although some of them are simple and ignorant,
they do not speak so shamelessly as he alleges), but other things of
much less serious import, which, however, serve to turn aside men from
the practice of wisdom.
But that the object of Christianity(2) is that we should become
wise, can be proved not only from the ancient Jewish writings, which we
also use, but especially from those which were composed after the time
of Jesus, and which are believed among the Churches to be divine. Now,
in the fiftieth Psalm, David is described as saying in his prayer to
God these words: "The unseen and secret things of Thy wisdom Thou hast
manifested to me."(3) Solomon, too, because he asked for wisdom,
received it; and if any one were to peruse the Psalms, he would find
the book filled with many maxims of wisdom: and the evidences of his
wisdom may be seen in his treatises, which contain a great amount of
wisdom expressed in few words, and in which you will find many
laudations of wisdom, and encouragements towards obtaining it. So wise,
moreover, was Solomon, that "the queen of Sheba, having heard his name,
and the name of the LORD, came to try him with difficult questions, and
spake to him all things, whatsoever were in her heart; and Solomon
answered her all her questions. There was no question omitted by the
king which he did not answer her. And the queen of Sheba saw all the
wisdom of Solomon, and the possessions which he had(4) and there was no
more spirit in her.(5) And she said to the king, The report is true
which I heard in mine own land regarding thee and thy wisdom; and I
believed not them who told me, until I had come, and mine eyes have
seen it. And, lo, they did not tell me the half. Thou hast added wisdom
and possessions above all the report which I heard."(6) It is recorded
also of him, that "God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding
much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore.
And the wisdom that was in Solomon greatly excelled the wisdom of all
the ancients, and of all the wise men of Egypt; and he was wiser than
all men, even than Gethan the Ezrahite, and Emad, and Chalcadi, and
Aradab, the sons of Madi. And he was famous among all the nations round
about. And Solomon spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were
five thousand. And he spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon
even to the hyssop which springeth out of the wall; and also of fishes
and of beasts. And all nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and
from all the kings of the earth who had heard of the fame of his
wisdom."(7)
And to such a degree does the Gospel desire that there should be
wise men among believers, that for the sake of exercising the
understanding of its hearers, it has spoken certain truths in enigmas,
others in what are called "dark" sayings, others in parables, and
others in problems.(8) And one of the prophets—Hosea—says at the end
of his prophecies: "Who is wise, and he will understand these things?
or prudent, and he shall know them?"(9) Daniel, moreover, and his
fellow-captives, made such progress in the learning which the wise men
around the king in Babylon cultivated, that they were shown to excel
all of them in a tenfold degree. And in the book of Ezekiel it is said
to the ruler of Tyre, who greatly prided himself on his wisdom, "Art
thou wiser than Daniel? Every secret was not revealed to thee."(10)
And if you come to the books written after the time of Jesus, you
will find that those multitudes of believers who hear the parables are,
as it were, "without," and worthy only of exoteric doctrines, while the
disciples learn in private the explanation of the parables. For,
privately, to His own disciples did Jesus open up all things, esteeming
above the multitudes those who desired to know His wisdom. And He
promises to those who believe upon Him to send them wise men and
scribes, saying, "Behold, I will send unto you wise men and scribes,
and some of them they shall kill and crucify.", And Paul also, in the
catalogue of "charismata" bestowed by God, placed first "the word of
wisdom," and second, as being inferior to it, "the word of knowledge,"
but third, and lower down, "faith."(2) And because he regarded "the
word" as higher than miraculous powers, he for that reason places
"workings of miracles" and "gifts of healings" in a lower place than
the gifts of the word. And in the Acts of the Apostles Stephen bears
witness to the great learning of Moses, which he had obtained wholly
from ancient writings not accessible to the multitude. For he says:
"And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians."(3) And
therefore, with respect to his miracles, it was suspected that he
wrought them perhaps, not in virtue of his professing to come from God,
but by means of his Egyptian knowledge, in which he was well versed.
For the king, entertaining such a suspicion, summoned the Egyptian
magicians, and wise men, and enchanters, who were found to be of no
avail as against the wisdom of Moses, which proved superior to all the
wisdom of the Egyptians.
But it is probable that what is written by Paul in the first
Epistle to the Corinthians,(4) as being addressed to Greeks who prided
themselves greatly on their Grecian wisdom, has moved some to believe
that it was not the object of the Gospel to win wise men. Now, let him
who is of this opinion understand that the Gospel, as censuring wicked
men, says of them that they are wise not in things which relate to the
understanding, and which are unseen and eternal; but that in busying
themselves about things of sense alone, and regarding these as
all-important, they are wise men of the world: for as there are in
existence a multitude of opinions, some of them espousing the cause of
matter and bodies,(5) and asserting that everything is corporeal which
has a substantial existence,(6) and that besides these nothing else
exists, whether it be called invisible or incorporeal, it says also
that these constitute the wisdom of the world, which perishes and fades
away, and belongs only to this age, while those opinions which raise
the soul from things here to the blessedness which is with God, and to
His kingdom, and which teach men to despise all sensible and visible
things as existing only for a season, and to hasten on to things
invisible, and to have regard to those things which are not
seen,—these, it says, constitute the wisdom of God. But Paul, as a
lover of truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, when their
statements are true, that "although they knew God, they glorified Him
not as God, neither were thankful."(7) And he bears witness that they
knew God, and says, too, that this did not happen to them without
divine permission, in these words: "For God showed it unto them;"(8)
dimly alluding, I think, to those who ascend from things of sense to
those of the understanding, when he adds, "For the invisible things of
God from the creation of the world are Clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so
that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they
glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful."(9)
And perhaps also from the words, "For ye see your calling,
brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty,
not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of
the world to confound the wise; and the base things, and the things
which are despised, hath God chosen, and things which are not, to
bring to nought things that are, that no flesh may glory in His
presence;(10) some have been led to suppose that no one who is
instructed, or wise, or prudent, embraces the Gospel. Now, in answer to
such an one, we would say that it has not been stated that "no wise man
according to the flesh," but that "not many wise men according to the
flesh," are called. It is manifest, further, that amongst the
characteristic qualifications of those who are termed "bishops," Paul,
in describing what kind of man the bishop ought to be, lays down as a
qualification that he should also be a teacher, saying that he ought to
be able to convince the gainsayers, that by the wisdom which is in him
he may stop the mouths of foolish talkers and deceivers.(11) And as he
selects for the episcopate a man who has been once married(12) rather
than he who has twice entered the married state,(13) and a man of
blameless life rather than one who is liable to censure, and a sober
man rather than one who is not such, and a prudent man rather than one
who is not prudent, and a man whose behaviour is decorous rather than
he who is open to the charge even of the slightest indecorum, so he
desires that he who is to be chosen by preference for the office of a
bishop should be apt to teach, and able to convince the gainsayers. How
then can Celsus justly charge us with saying, "Let no one come to us
who is 'instructed,' or 'wise,' or 'prudent?' " Nay, let him who wills
come to us "instructed," and "wise," and "prudent;" and none the less,
if any one be ignorant and unintelligent, and uninstructed and foolish,
let him also come: for it is these whom the Gospel promises to cure,
when they come, by rendering them all worthy of God.
This statement also is untrue, that it is "only foolish and low
individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women,
and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make
converts." Such indeed does the Gospel invite, in order to make them
better; but it invites also others who are very different from these,
since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that
believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and "He is the
propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but
also for the sins of the whole world."(1) After this it is superfluous
for us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the
following: "For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have
studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance
of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why
should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might
be better able to arrive at the truth?" Truly it is no evil to have
been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those
amongst the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what
even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who
would not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing?
But what shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which
incite men to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to
be wise, but not to seem so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to
the knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to
have studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us
rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an
Epicurean.
But let us see what those statements of his are which follow next
in these words: "Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who
in the market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who
gather crowds around them, would never approach an assembly of wise
men, nor dare to exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see
young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent
persons, thither they thrust themselves in, and show themselves off."
Observe, now, how he slanders us in these words, comparing us to those
who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and
gather crowds around them! What disreputable tricks, pray, do we
perform? Or what is there in our conduct that resembles theirs, seeing
that by means of readings, and explanations of the things read, we lead
men to the worship of the God of the universe, and to the cognate
virtues, and turn them away from contemning Deity, and from all things
contrary to right reason? Philosophers verily would wish to collect
together such hearers of their discourses as exhort men to virtue,—a
practice which certain of the Cynics especially have followed, who
converse publicly with those whom they happen to meet. Will they
maintain, then, that these who do not gather together persons who are
considered to have been educated, but who invite and assemble hearers
from the public street, resemble those who in the market-places perform
the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds around them? Neither
Celsus, however, nor any one who holds the same opinions, will blame
those who, agreeably to what they regard as a feeling of philanthropy,
address their arguments to the ignorant populace.
And if they are not to be blamed for so doing, let us see whether
Christians do not exhort multitudes to the practice of virtue in a
greater and better degree than they. For the philosophers who converse
in public do not pick and choose their hearers, but he who likes stands
and listens. The Christians, however, having previously, so far as
possible, tested the souls of those who wish to become their hearers,
and having previously instructed(2) them in private, when they appear
(before entering the community) to have sufficiently evinced their
desire towards a virtuous life, introduce them then, and not before,
privately forming one class of those who are beginners, and are
receiving admission, but who have not yet obtained the mark of complete
purification; and another of those who have manifested to the best of
their ability their intention to desire no other things than are
approved by Christians; and among these there are certain persons
appointed to make inquiries regard- ing the lives and behaviour of
those who join them, in order that they may prevent those who commit
acts of infamy from coming into their public assembly, while those of a
different character they receive with their whole heart, in order that
they may daily make them better. And this is their method of procedure,
both with those who are sinners, and especially with those who lead
dissolute lives, whom they exclude from their community, although,
according to Celsus, they resemble those who in the market-places
perform the most shameful tricks. Now the venerable school of the
Pythagoreans used to erect a cenotaph to those who had apostatized from
their system of philosophy, treating them as dead; but the Christians
lament as dead those who have been vanquished by licentiousness or any
other sin, because they are lost and dead to God, and as being risen
from the dead (if they manifest a becoming change) they receive them
afterwards, at some future time, after a greater interval than in the
case of those who were admitted at first, but not placing in any office
or post of rank in the Church of God those who, after professing the
Gospel, lapsed and fell.
Observe now with regard to the following statement of Celsus, "We
see also those persons who in the market-places perform most
disreputable tricks, and collect crowds around them," whether a
manifest falsehood has not been uttered, and things compared which have
no resemblance. He says that these individuals, to whom he compares us,
who "perform the most disreputable tricks in the market-places and
collect crowds, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare
to show off their tricks before them; but wherever they see young men,
and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of foolish people, thither do they
thrust themselves in and make a display." Now, in speaking thus he does
nothing else than simply load us with abuse, like the women upon the
public streets, whose object is to slander one another; for we do
everything in our power to secure that our meetings should be composed
of wise men, and those things among us which are especially excellent
and divine we then venture to bring forward publicly in our discussions
when we have an abundance of intelligent hearers, while we conceal and
pass by in silence the truths of deeper import when we see that our
audience is composed of simpler minds, which need such instruction as
is figuratively termed "milk."
For the word is used by our Paul in writing to the Corinthians,
who were Greeks, and not yet purified in their morals: "I have fed you
with milk, not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able, for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there
is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as
men?"(1) Now the same writer,(2) knowing that there was a certain kind
of nourishment better adapted for the soul, and that the food of those
young(3) persons who were admitted was compared to milk, continues:
"And ye are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of
righteousness; for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them
that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their
senses exercised to discern both good and evil."(4) Would then those
who believe these words to be well spoken, suppose that the noble
doctrines of our faith would never be mentioned in an assembly of wise
men, but that wherever (our instructors) see young men, and a mob of
slaves, and a collection of foolish individuals, they bring publicly
forward divine and venerable truths, and before such persons make a
display of themselves in treating of them? But it is clear to him who
examines the whole spirit of our writings, that Celsus is animated with
a hatred against the human race resembling that of the ignorant
populace, and gives utterance to these falsehoods without examination.
We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so,
that we do desire to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give
to young men the exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to
show to slaves how they may recover freedom of thought,(5) and be
ennobled by the word. And those amongst us who are the ambassadors of
Christianity sufficiently declare that they are debtors(6) to Greeks
and Barbarians, to wise men and fools, (for they do not deny their
obligation to cure the souls even of foolish persons,) in order that as
far as possible they may lay aside their ignorance, and endeavour to
obtain greater prudence, by listening also to the words of Solomon:
"Oh, ye fools, be of an understanding heart,"(7) and "Who is the most
simple among you, let him turn unto me;"(8) and wisdom exhorts those
who are devoid of understanding in the words, "Come, eat of my bread,
and drink of the wine which I have mixed for you. Forsake folly that ye
may live, and correct understanding in knowledge."(1) This too would I
say (seeing it bears on the point),(2) in answer to the statement of
Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? and do
they not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better?
and do they not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault,
then, with philosophers who have exhorted slaves to the practice of
virtue? with Pythagoras for having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with
Perseus, and with those who recently encouraged Epictetus to the study
of philosophy? Is it indeed permissible for you, O Greeks, to call
youths and slaves and foolish persons to the study of philosophy, but
if we do so, we do not act from philanthropic motives in wishing to
heal every rational nature with the medicine of reason, and to bring
them into fellowship with God, the Creator of all things? These
remarks, then, may suffice in answer to what are slanders rather than
accusations(3) on the part of Celsus.
But as Celsus delights to heap up calumnies against us, and, in
addition to those which he has already uttered, has added others, let
us examine these also, and see whether it be the Christians or Celsus
who have reason to be ashamed of what is said. He asserts, "We see,
indeed, in private houses workers in wool and leather, and fullers, and
persons of the most uninstructed and rustic character, not venturing to
utter a word in the presence of their elders and wiser masters;(4) but
when they get hold of the children privately, and certain women as
ignorant as themselves, they pour forth wonderful statements, to the
effect that they ought not to give heed to their father and to their
teachers, but should obey them; that the former are foolish and stupid,
and neither know nor can perform anything that is really good, being
preoccupied with empty trifles; that they alone know how men ought to
live, and that, if the children obey them, they will both be happy
themselves, and will make their home happy also. And while thus
speaking, if they see one of the instructors of youth approaching, or
one of the more intelligent class, or even the father himself, the more
timid among them become afraid, while the more forward incite the
children to throw off the yoke, whispering that in the presence of
father and teachers they neither will nor can explain to them any good
thing, seeing they turn away with aversion from the silliness and
stupidity of such persons as being altogether corrupt, and far advanced
in wickedness, and such as would inflict punishment upon them; but that
if they wish (to avail themselves of their aid,) they must leave their
father and their instructors, and go with the women and their
playfellows to the women's apartments, or to the leather shop, or to
the fuller's shop, that they may attain to perfection;—and by words
like these they gain them over."
Observe now how by such statements he depreciates those amongst
us who are teachers of the word, and who strive in every way to raise
the soul to the Creator of all things, and who show that we ought to
despise things "sensible," and "temporal," and "visible," and to do our
utmost to reach communion with God, and the contemplation of things
that are "intelligent," and "invisible," and a blessed life with God,
and the friends of God; comparing them to "workers in wool in private
houses, and to leather-cutters, and to fullers, and to the most rustic
of mankind, who carefully incite young boys to wickedness, and women to
forsake their fathers and teachers, and follow them." Now let Celsus
point out from what wise parent, or from what teachers, we keep away
children and women, and let him ascertain by comparison among those
children and women who are adherents of our doctrine, whether any of
the opinions which they formerly heard are better than ours, and in
what manner we draw away children and women from noble and venerable
studies, and incite them to worse things. But he will not be able to
make good any such charge against us, seeing that, on the contrary, we
turn away women from a dissolute life, and from being at variance with
those with whom they live, from all mad desires after theatres and
dancing, and from superstition; while we train to habits of
self-restraint boys just reaching the age of puberty, and feeling a
desire for sexual pleasures, pointing out to them not only the disgrace
which attends those sins, but also the state to which the soul of the
wicked is reduced through practices of that kind, and the judgments
which it will suffer, and the punishments which will be inflicted.
But who are the teachers whom we call triflers and fools, whose
defence is undertaken by Celsus, as of those who teach better things?
(I know not,) unless he deem those to be good instructors of women, and
no triflers, who invite them to superstition and to unchaste
spectacles, and those, moreover, to be teachers not devoid of sense who
lead and drag the young men to all those disorderly acts which we know
are often committed by them. We indeed call away these also, as far as
we can, from the dogmas of philosophy to our worship of God, by showing
forth its excellence aud purity. But as Celsus, by his statements, has
declared that we do not do so, but that we call only the foolish, I
would say to him, "If you had charged us with withdrawing from the
study of philosophy those who were already preoccupied with it, you
would not have spoken the truth, and yet your charge would have had an
appearance of probability; but when you now say that we draw away our
adherents from good teachers, show who are those other teachers save
the teachers of philosophy, or those who have been appointed to give
instruction in some useful branch of study."(1)
He will be unable, however, to show any such.; while we promise,
openly and not in secret, that they will be happy who live according to
the word of God, and who look to Him in all things, and who do
everything, whatever it is, as if in the presence of God. Are these the
instructions of workers in wool, and of leather-cutters, and fullers,
and uneducated rustics? But such an assertion he cannot make good.
But those who, in the opinion of Celsus, resemble the workers in
wool in private houses, and the leather-cutters, and fullers, and
uneducated rustics, will, he alleges, in the presence of father or
teachers be unwilling to speak, or unable to explain to the boys
anything that is good. In answer to which, we would say, What kind of
father, my good sir, and what kind of teacher, do you mean? If you
mean one who approves of virtue, and turns away from vice, and welcomes
what is better, then know, that with the greatest boldness will we
declare our opinions to the children, because we will be in good repute
with such a judge. But if, in the presence of a father who has a hatred
of virtue and goodness, we keep silence, and also before those who
teach what is contrary to sound doctrine, do not blame us for so doing,
since you will blame us without good reason. You, at all events, in a
case where fathers deemed the mysteries of philosophy an idle and
unprofitable occupation for their sons, and for young men in general,
would not, in teaching philosophy, make known its secrets before
worthless parents; but, desiring to keep apart those sons of wicked
parents who had been turned towards the study of philosophy, you would
observe the proper seasons, in order that the doctrines of philosophy
might reach the minds of the young men. And we say the same regarding
our teachers. For if we turn (our hearers) away from those instructors
who teach obscene comedies and licentious iambics, and many other
things which neither improve the speaker nor benefit the bearers
(because the latter do not know how to listen to poetry in a
philosophic frame of mind, nor the former how to say to each of the
young men what tends to his profit), we are not, in following such a
course, ashamed to confess what we do. But if you will show me teachers
who train young men for philosophy, and who exercise them in it, I will
not from such turn away young men, but will try to raise them, as those
who have been previously exercised in the whole circle of learning and
in philosophical subjects, to the venerable and lofty height of
eloquence which lies hid from the multitude of Christians, where are
discussed topics of the greatest importance, and where it is
demonstrated and shown that they have been treated philosophically both
by the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus.
Immediately after this, Celsus, perceiving that he has slandered
us with too great bitterness, as if by way of defence expresses himself
as follows: "That I bring no heavier charge than what the truth compels
me, any one may see from the following remarks. Those who invite to
participation in other mysteries, make proclamation as follows: 'Every
one who has clean hands, and a prudent tongue;'(2) others again thus:
'He who is pure from all pollution, and whose soul is conscious of no
evil, and who has lived well and justly.' Such is the proclamation made
by those who promise purification from sins.(3) But let us hear what
kind of persons these Christians invite. Every one, they say, who is a
sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak
generally, whoever is unfortunate, him will the kingdom of God receive.
Do you not call him a sinner, then, who is unjust, and a thief, and a
housebreaker, and a poisoner, and a committer of sacrilege, and a
robber of the dead? What others would a man invite if he were issuing a
proclamation for an assembly of robbers?" Now, in answer to such
statements, we say that it is not the same thing to invite those who
are sick in saul to be cured, and those who are in health to the
knowledge and study of divine things. We, however, keeping both these
things in view, at first invite all men to be healed, and exhort those
who are sinners to come to the consideration of the doctrines which
teach men not to sin, and those who are devoid of understanding to
those which beget wisdom, and those who are children to rise in their
thoughts to manhood, and those who are simply(1) unfortunate to good
fortune,(2) or—which is the more appropriate term to use—to
blessedness.(3) And when those who have been turned towards virtue have
made progress, and have shown that they have been purified by the word,
and have led as far as they can a better life, then and not before do
we invite them to participation in our mysteries. "For we speak wisdom
among them that are perfect."(4)
And as we teach, moreover, that "wisdom will not enter into the
soul of a base man, nor dwell in a body that is involved in sin,"(5) we
say, Whoever has clean hands, and therefore lifts up holy hands to God,
and by reason of being occupied with elevated and heavenly things, can
say, "The lifting up of my hands is as the evening sacrifice,'(6) let
him come to us; and whoever has a wise tongue through meditating on the
law of the Lord day and night, and by "reason of habit has his senses
exercised to discern between good and evil," let him have no reluctance
in coming to the strong and rational sustenance which is adapted to
those who are athletes in piety and every virtue. And since the grace
of God is with all those who love with a pure affection the teacher of
the doctrines of immortality, whoever is pure not only from all
defilement, but from what are regarded as lesser transgressions, let
him be boldly initiated in the mysteries of Jesus, which properly are
made known only to the holy and the pure. The initiated of Celsus
accordingly says, "Let him whose soul is conscious of no evil come."
But he who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus, will
say to those who have been purified in heart, "He whose soul has, for a
long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded
himself to the healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines
which were spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples."
Therefore in the comparison which he institutes between the procedure
of the initiators into the Grecian mysteries, and the teachers of the
doctrine of Jesus, he does not know the difference between inviting the
wicked to be healed, and initiating those already purified into the
sacred mysteries!
Not to participation in mysteries, then, and to fellowship in the
wisdom hidden in a mystery, which God ordained before the world to the
glory of His saints,(7) do we invite the wicked man, and the thief, and
the housebreaker, and the prisoner, and the committer of sacrilege, and
the plunderer of the dead, and all those others whom Celsus may
enumerate in his exaggerating style, but such as these we invite to be
healed. For there are in the divinity of the word some helps towards
the cure of those who are sick, respecting which the word says, "They
that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick;"(8) others,
gain, which to the pure in soul and body exhibit "the revelation of the
mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made
manifest by the Scriptures of the prophets,"(9) and "by the appearing
of our Lord Jesus Christ,"(10) which "appearing" is manifested to each
one of those who are perfect, and which enlightens the reason" in the
true" knowledge of things. But as he exaggerates the charges against
us, adding, after his list of those vile individuals whom he has
mentioned, this remark, "What other persons would a robber summon to
himself by proclamation?" we answer such a question by saying that a
robber summons around him individuals of such a character, in order to
make use of their villany against the men whom they desire to slay and
plunder. A Christian, on the other hand, even though he invite those
whom the robber invites, invites them to a very different vocation,
viz. to bind up these wounds by His word, and to apply to the soul,
festering amid evils, the drugs obtained from the word, and which are
analogous to the wine and oil, and plasters, and other healing
appliances which belong to the art of medicine.
In the next place, throwing a slur(13) upon the exhortations
spoken and written to those who have led wicked lives, and which invite
them to repentance and reformation of heart, he asserts that we say
"that it was to sinners that God has been sent." Now this statement of
his is much the same as if he were to find fault with certain persons
for saying that on account of the sick who were living in a city, a
physician had been sent them by a very benevolent monarch.(14) God the
Word was sent, indeed, as a physician to sinners, but as a teacher of
divine mysteries to those who are already pure and who sin no more. But
Celsus, unable to see this distinction,—for he had no desire to be
animated with a love of truth,—remarks, "Why was he not sent to those
who were without sin? What evil is it not to have committed sin?" To
which we reply, that if by those "who were without sin" he means those
who sin no more, then our Saviour Jesus was sent even to such, but not
as a physician. While if by those "who were without sin" he means such
as have never at any time sinned,—for he made no distinction in his
statement,—we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without
sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in
Christ Jesus,(1) who "did no sin." It is with a malicious intent,
indeed, that Celsus says of us that we assert that "God will receive
the unrighteousness man if he humble himself on account of his
wickedness, but that He will not receive the righteous man, although he
look up to Him, (adorned) with virtue from the beginning." Now we
assert that it is impossible for a man to look up to God (adorned) with
virtue from the beginning. For wickedness must necessarily first exist
in men. As Paul also says, "When the commandment came, sin revived, and
I died."(2) Moreover, we do not teach regarding the unrighteous man,
that it is sufficient for him to humble himself on account of his
wickedness in order to his being accepted by God, but that God will
accept him if, after passing condemnation upon himself for his past
conduct, he walk humbly on account of it, and in a becoming manner for
the time to come.
After this, not understanding how it has been said that "every
one who exalted himself shall be abased;"(3) nor (although taught even
by Plato) that "the good and virtuous man walketh humbly and orderly;"
and ignorant, moreover, that we give the injunction, "Humble
yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt
you in due time;"(4) he says that "those persons who preside properly
over a trial make those individuals who bewail before them their evil
deeds to cease from their piteous wailings, lest their decisions should
be determined rather by compassion than by a regard to truth; whereas
God does not decide in accordance with truth, but in accordance with
flattery."(5) Now, what words of flattery and piteous walling are
contained in the Holy Scriptures when the sinner says in his prayers to
God, "I have acknowledged my sin, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I
said, I will confess my transgression to the Lord," etc., etc.? For is
he able to show that a procedure of this kind is not adapted to the
conversion of sinners, who humble themselves in their prayers under the
hand of God? And, becoming confused by his efforts to accuse us, he
contradicts himself; appearing at one time to know a man "without sin,"
and "a righteous man, who can look up to God (adorned) with virtue from
the beginning;" and at another time accepting our statement that there
is no man altogether righteous, or without sin;(6) for, as if he
admitted its truth, he remarks, "This is indeed apparently true, that
somehow the human race is naturally inclined to sin." In the next
place, as if all men were not invited by the word, he says, "All men,
then, without distinction, ought to be invited, since all indeed are
sinners." And yet, in the preceding pages, we have pointed out the
words of Jesus: "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest."(7) All men, therefore, labouring and being
heavy laden on account of the nature of sin, are invited to the rest
spoken of in the word of God, "for God sent His word, and healed them,
and delivered them from their destructions."(8)
But since he says, in addition to this, "What is this preference
of sinners over others?" and makes other remarks of a similar nature,
we have to reply that absolutely a sinner is not preferred before one
who is not a sinner; but that sometimes a sinner, who has become
conscious of his own sin, and for that reason comes to repentance,
being humbled on account of his sins, is preferred before one who is
accounted a lesser sinner, but who does not consider himself one, but
exalts himself on the ground of certain good qualities which he thinks
he possesses, and is greatly elated on their account. And this is
manifest to those who are willing to peruse the Gospels in a spirit of
fairness, by the parable of the publican, who said, "Be merciful to me
a sinner,"(9) and of the Pharisee who boasted with a certain wicked
self-conceit in the words, "I thank Thee that I am not as other men
are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican."(10)
For Jesus subjoins to his narrative of them both the words: "This man
went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one
that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself
shall be exalted."(1) We utter no blasphemy, then, against God, neither
are we guilty of falsehood, when we teach that every man, whoever he
may be, is conscious of human infirmity in comparison with the
greatness of God, and that we must ever ask from Him, who alone is able
to supply our deficiencies, what is wanting to our (mortal) nature.
He imagines, however, that we utter these exhortations for the
conversion of sinners, because we are able to gain over no one who is
really good and righteous, and therefore open our gates to the most
unholy and abandoned of men. But if any one will fairly observe our
assemblies we can present a greater number of those who have been
converted from not a very wicked life, than of those who have committed
the most abominable sins. For naturally those who are conscious to
themselves of better things, desire that those promises may be true
which are declared by God regarding the reward of the righteous, and
thus assent more readily to the statements (of Scripture) than those do
who have led very wicked lives, and who are prevented by their very
consciousness (of evil) from admitting that they will be punished by
the Judge of all with such punishment as befits those who have sinned
so greatly, and as would not be inflicted by the Judge of all contrary
to fight reason? Sometimes, also, when very abandoned men are willing
to accept the doctrine of (future) punishment, on account of the hope
which is based upon repentance, they are prevented from so doing by
their habit of sinning, being constantly dipped,(3) and, as it were,
dyed(4) in wickedness, and possessing no longer the power to turn from
it easily to a proper life, and one regulated according to right
reason. And although Celsus observes this, he nevertheless, I know not
why, expresses himself in the following terms: "And yet, indeed, it is
manifest to every one that no one by chastisement, much less by
merciful treatment, could effect a complete change in those who are
sinners both by nature and custom, for to change nature is an
exceedingly difficult thing. But they who are without sin are partaken
of a better life."
Now here Celsus appears to me to have committed a great error, in
refusing to those who are sinners by nature, and also by habit, the
possibility of a complete transformation, alleging that they cannot be
cured even by punishment. For it clearly appears that all men are
inclined to sin by nature,(5) and some not only by nature but by
practice, while not all men are incapable of an entire transformation.
For there are found in every philosophical sect, and in the word of
God, persons who are related to have undergone so great a change that
they may be proposed as a model of excellence of life. Among the names
of the heroic age some mention Hercules and Ulysses, among those of
later times, Socrates, and of those who have lived very recently,
Musonius.(6) Not only against us, then, did Celsus utter the calumny,
when he said that "it was manifest to every one that those who were
given to sin by nature and habit could not by any means—even by
punishments—be completely changed for the better," but also against
the noblest names in philosophy, who have not denied that the recovery
of virtue was a possible thing for men. But although he did not express
his meaning with exactness, we shall nevertheless, though giving his
words a more favourable construction, convict him of unsound reasoning.
For his words were: "Those who are inclined to sin by nature and habit,
no one could completely reform even by chastisement;" and his words, as
we understood them, we refuted to the best of our ability.(7)
It is probable, however, that he meant to convey some such
meaning as this, that those who were both by nature and habit given to
the commission of those sins which are committed by the most abandoned
of men, could not be completely transformed even by punishment. And yet
this is shown to be false from the history of certain philosophers. For
who is there that would not rank among the most abandoned of men the
individual who somehow submitted to yield himself to his master, when
he placed him in a brothel,(8) that he might allow himself to be
polluted by any one who liked? And yet such a circumstance is related
of Phaedo! And who will not agree that he who burst, accompanied with a
flute-player and a party of revellers, his profligate associates, into
the school of the venerable Xenocrates, to insult a man who was the
admiration of his friends, was not one of the greatest miscreants(9)
among mankind? Yet, notwithstanding this, reason was powerful enough to
effect their conversion, and to enable them to make such progress in
philosophy, that the one was deemed worthy by Plato to recount the
discourse of Socrates on immortality, and to record his firmness in
prison, when he evinced his contempt of the hemlock, and with all
fearlessness and tranquillity of mind treated of subjects so numerous
and important, that it is difficult even for those to follow them who
are giving their utmost attention, and who are disturbed by no
distraction; while Polemon, on the other hand, who from a profligate
became a man of most temperate life, was successor in the school of
Xenocrates, so celebrated for his venerable character. Celsus then does
not speak the truth when he says "that sinners by nature and habit
cannot be completely reformed even by chastisement."
That philosophical discourses, however, distinguished by orderly
arrangement and elegant expression, (1) should produce such results in
the case of those individuals just enumerated, and upon others (2) who
have led wicked lives, is not at all to be wondered at. But when we
consider that those discourses, which Celsus terms "vulgar," (3) are
filled with power, as if they were spells, and see that they at once
convert multitudes from a life of licentiousness to one of extreme
regularity, (4) and from a life of wickedness to a better, and from a
state of cowardice or unmanliness to one of such high-toned courage as
to lead men to despise even death through the piety which shows itself
within them, why should we not justly admire the power which they
contain? For the words of those who at the first assumed the office of
(Christian) ambassadors, and who gave their labours to rear up the
Churches of God,—nay, their preaching also,—were accompanied with a
persuasive power, though not like that found among those who profess
the philosophy of Plato, or of any other merely human philosopher,
which possesses no other qualities than those of human nature. But the
demonstration which followed the words of the apostles of Jesus was
given from God, and was accredited s by the Spirit and by power. And
therefore their word ran swiftly and speedily, or rather the word of
God through their instrumentality, transformed numbers of persons who
had been sinners both by nature and habit, whom no one could have
reformed by punishment, but who were changed by the word, which moulded
and transformed them according to its pleasure.
Celsus continues in his usual manner, asserting that "to change a
nature entirely is exceedingly difficult." We, however, who know of
only one nature in every rational soul, and who maintain that none has
been created evil by the Author of all things, but that many have
become wicked through education, and perverse example, and surrounding
influences, (6) so that wickedness has been naturalized (7) in some
individuals, are persuaded that for the word of God to change a nature
in which evil has been naturalized is not only not impossible, but is
even a work of no very great difficulty, if a man only believe that he
must entrust himself to the God of all things, and do everything with a
view to please Him with whom it cannot be (8) that "Both good and bad
are in the same honour, Or that the idle man and he who laboured much
Perish alike." (9) But even if it be exceedingly difficult to effect a
change in some persons, the cause must be held to lie in their own
will, which is reluctant to accept the belief that the God over all
things is a just Judge of all the deeds done during life. For
deliberate choice and practice (10) avail much towards the
accomplishment of things which appear to be very difficult, and, to
speak hyperbolically, almost impossible. Has the nature of man, when
desiring to walk along a rope extended in the air through the middle of
the theatre, and to carry at the same time numerous and heavy weights,
been able by practice and attention to accomplish such a feat; but when
desiring to live in conformity with the practice of virtue, does it
find it impossible to do so, although formerly it may have been
exceedingly wicked? See whether he who holds such views does not bring
a charge against the nature of the Creator of the rational animal"
rather than against the creature, if He has formed the nature of man
with powers for the attainment of things of such difficulty, and of no
utility whatever, but has rendered it incapable of securing its own
blessedness. But these remarks may suffice as an answer to the
assertion that "entirely to change a nature is exceedingly difficult."
He alleges, in the next place, that "they who are without sin are
partakers of a better life;" not making it clear what he means by
"those who are without sin," whether those who are so from the
beginning (of their lives), or those who become so by a transformation.
Of those who were so from the beginning of their lives, there cannot
possibly be any; while those who are so after a
492
transformation (of heart) are found to be few in number, being those who have become so after giving in their alIegiance to the saving word. And they were not such when they gave in their allegiance. For, apart from the aid of the word, and that too the word of perfection, it is impossible for a man to become free from sin.
In the next place, he objects to the statement, as if it were
maintained by us, that "God will be able to do all things," not seeing
even here how these words are meant, and what "the all things" are
which are included in it, and how it is said that God "will be able."
But on these matters it is not necessary now to speak; for although he
might with a show of reason have opposed this proposition, he has not
done so. Perhaps he did not understand the arguments which might be
plausibly used against it, or if he did, he saw the answers that might
be returned. Now in our judgment God can do everything which it is
possible for Him to do without ceasing to be God, and good, and wise.
But Celsus asserts—not comprehending the meaning of the expression
"God can do all things "—" that He will not desire to do anything
wicked," admitting that He has the power, but not the will, to commit
evil. We, on the contrary, maintain that as that which by nature
possesses the property of sweetening other things through its own
inherent sweetness cannot produce bitterness contrary to its own
peculiar nature, (1) nor that whose nature it is to produce light
through its being light can cause darkness; so neither is God able to
commit wickedness, for the power of doing evil is contrary to His deity
and its omnipotence. Whereas if any one among existing things is able
to commit wickedness from being inclined to wickedness by nature, it
does so from not having in its nature the ability not to do evil.
He next assumes what is not granted by the more rational class of
believers, but what perhaps is considered to be true by some who are
devoid of intelligence,—viz., that "God, like those who are overcome
with pity, being Himself overcome, alleviates the sufferings of the
wicked through pity for their wailings, and casts off the good, who do
nothing of that kind, which is the height of injustice." Now, in our
judgment, God lightens the suffering of no wicked man who has not
betaken himself to a virtuous life, and casts off no one who is already
good, nor yet alleviates the suffering of any one who mourns, simply
because he utters lamentation, or takes pity upon him, to use the word
pity in its more common acceptation. (2) But those who have passed
severe condemnation upon themselves because of their sins, and who, as
on that account, lament and bewail themselves as lost, so far as their
previous conduct is concerned, and who have manifested a satisfactory
change, are received by God on account of their repentance, as those
who have undergone a transformation from a life of great wickedness.
For virtue, taking up her abode in the souls of these persons, and
expelling the wickedness which had previous possession of them,
produces an oblivion of the past. And even although virtue do not
effect an entrance, yet if a considerable progress take place in the
soul, even that is sufficient, in the proportion that it is
progressive, to drive out and destroy the flood of wickedness, so that
it almost ceases to remain in the soul.
In the next place, speaking as in the person of a teacher of our
doctrine, he expresses himself as follows: "Wise men reject what we
say, being led into error, and ensnared by their wisdom." In reply to
which we say that, since wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human
things and of their causes, or, as it is defined by the word of God,
"the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the
glory of the Almighty; and the brightness of the everlasting light, and
the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His
goodness," (3) no one who was really wise would reject what is said by
a Christian acquainted with the principles of Christianity, or would be
led into error, or ensnared by it. For true wisdom does not mislead,
but ignorance does, while of existing things knowledge alone is
permanent, and the truth which is derived from wisdom. But if, contrary
to the definition of wisdom, you call any one whatever who dogmatizes
with sophistical opinions wise, we answer that in conformity with what
you call wisdom, such an one rejects the words of God, being misled and
ensnared by plausible sophisms. And since, according to our doctrine,
wisdom is not the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of evil, so to
speak, is in those who hold false opinions and who are deceived by
them, I would therefore in such persons term it ignorance rather than
wisdom.
After this he again slanders the ambassador of Christianity, and
gives out regarding him that he relates "ridiculous things," although
he does not show or clearly point out what are the things which he
calls "ridiculous." And in his slanders he says that "no wise man
believes the Gospel, being driven away by the multitudes who adhere to
it." And in this he acts like one who should say that owing to the
multitude of those ignorant persons who are brought into subjection to
the laws, no wise man would yield obedience to Solon, for example, or
to Lycurgus, or Zaleucus, or any other legislator, and especially if by
wise man he means one who is wise (by living) in conformity with
virtue. For, as with regard to these ignorant persons, the legislators,
according to their ideas of utility, caused them to be surrounded with
appropriate guidance and laws, so God, legislating through Jesus Christ
for men in all parts of the world, brings: to Himself even those who
are not wise in the way in which it is possible for such persons to be
brought to a better life. And God, well knowing this, as we have
already shown in the preceding pages, says in the books of Moses "They
have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have
provoked Me to anger with their idols: and I will move them to jealousy
with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a
foolish nation." (1) And Paul also, knowing this, said, "But God hath
chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise," (2)
calling, in a general way, wise all who appear to have made advances in
knowledge, but have fallen into an atheistic polytheism, since
"professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." (3)
He accuses the Christian teacher, moreover of" seeking after the
unintelligent." In answer we ask, Whom do you mean by the
"unintelligent?" For, to speak accurately, every wicked man is
"unintelligent." If then by "unintelligent" you mean the wicked, do
you, in drawing men to philosophy, seek to gain the wicked or the
virtuous? (4) But it is impossible to gain the virtuous, because they
have already given themselves to philosophy. The wicked, then, (you try
to gain;) but if they are wicked, are they "unintelligent?" And many
such you seek to win over to philosophy, and you therefore seek the
"unintelligent." But if I seek after those who are thus termed
"unintelligent," I act like a benevolent physician, who should seek
after the sick in order to help and cure them. If, bow-ever, by
"unintelligent" you mean persons who are not clever, (5) but the
inferior class of men intellectually, (6) I shall answer that I
endeavour to improve such also to the best of my ability, although I
would not desire to build up the Christian community out of such
materials. For I seek in preference those who are more clever and
acute, because they are able to comprehend the meaning of the hard
sayings, and of those passages in the law, and prophecies, and Gospels,
which are expressed with obscurity, and which you have despised as not
containing anything worthy of notice, because you have not ascertained
the meaning which they contain, nor tried to enter into the aim of the
writers.
But as he afterwards says that "the teacher of Christianity acts
like a person who promises to restore patients to bodily health, but
who prevents them from consulting skilled physicians, by whom his
ignorance would be exposed," we shall inquire in reply, "What are the
physicians to whom you refer, from whom we turn away ignorant
individuals.? For you do not suppose that we exhort those to embrace
the Gospel who are devoted to philosophy, so that you would regard the
latter as the physicians from whom we keep away such as we invite to
come to the word of God." He indeed will make no answer, because he
cannot name the physicians; or else he will be obliged to betake
himself to those of them who are ignorant, and who of their own accord
servilely yield themselves to the worship of many gods, and to whatever
other opinions are entertained by ignorant individuals. In either case,
then, he will be shown to have employed to no purpose in his argument
the illustration of "one who keeps others away from skilled
physicians." But if, in order to preserve from the philosophy of
Epicurus, and from such as are considered physicians after his system,
those who are deceived by them, why should we not be acting most
reasonably in keeping such away from a dangerous disease caused by the
physicians of Celsus,—that, viz., which leads to the annihilation of
providence, and the introduction of pleasure as a good? But let it be
conceded that we do keep away those whom we encourage to become our
disciples from other philosopher-physicians,—from the Peripatetics,
for example, who deny the existence of providence and the relation of
Deity to man,—why shall we not piously train (7) and heal those who
have been thus encouraged, persuading them to devote themselves to the
God of all things, and free those who yield obedience to us from the
great wounds inflicted by the words of such as are deemed to be
philosophers? Nay, let it also be admitted that-we turn away from
physicians of the sect of the Stoics, who introduce a corruptible god,
and assert that his essence consists of a body, which is capable of
being changed and altered in all its parts, (1) and who also maintain
that all things will one day perish, and that God alone will be left;
why shall we not even thus emancipate our subjects from evils, and
bring them by pious arguments to devote themselves to the Creator, and
to admire the Father of the Christian system, who has so arranged that
instruction of the most benevolent kind, and fitted for the conversion
of souls, (2) should be distributed throughout the whole human race?
Nay, if we should cure those who have fallen into the folly of
believing in the transmigration of souls through the teaching of
physicians, who will have it that the rational nature descends
sometimes into all kinds of irrational animals, and sometimes into that
state of being which is incapable of using the imagination, (3) why
should we not improve the souls of our subjects by means of a doctrine
which does not teach that a state of insensibility or irrationalism is
produced in the wicked instead of punishment, but which shows that the
labours and chastisements inflicted upon the wicked by God are a kind
of medicines leading to conversion? For those who are intelligent
Christians, (4) keeping this in view, deal with the simple-minded, as
parents do with very young s children. We do not betake ourselves then
to young persons and silly rustics, saying to them, "Flee from
physicians." Nor do we say, "See that none of you lay hold of
knowledge;" nor do we assert that "knowledge is an evil;" nor are we
mad enough to say that "knowledge causes men to lose their soundness of
mind." We would not even say that any one ever perished through wisdom;
and although we give instruction, we never say, "Give heed to me," but
"Give heed to the God of all things, and to Jesus, the giver of
instruction concerning Him." And none of us is so great a braggart (6)
as to say what Celsus put in the mouth of one of our teachers to his
acquaintances, "I alone will save you." Observe here the lies which he
utters against us! Moreover, we do not assert that "true physicians
destroy those whom they promise to cure."
And he produces a second illustration to our disadvantage, saying
that "our teacher acts like a drunken man, who, entering a company of
drunkards, should accuse those who are sober of being drunk." But let
him show, say from the writings of Paul, that the apostle of Jesus gave
way to drunkenness, and that his words were not those of soberness; or
from the writings of John, that his thoughts do not breathe a spirit of
temperance and of freedom from the intoxication of evil. No one, then,
who is of sound mind, and teaches the doctrines of Christianity, gets
drunk with wine; but Celsus utters these calumnies against us in a
spirit very unlike that of a philosopher. Moreover, let Celsus say who
those "sober" persons are whom the ambassadors of Christianity accuse.
For in our judgment all are intoxicated who address themselves to
inanimate objects as to God. And why do I say "intoxicated?" "Insane"
would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and
worship images or animals as divinities. And they too are not less
insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and
sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine
divinities. (7)
He next likens our teacher to one suffering from ophthalmia, and
his disciples to those suffering from the same disease, and says that
"such an one amongst a company of those who are afflicted with
ophthalmia, accuses those who are sharp-sighted of being blind." Who,
then, would we ask, O Greeks, are they who in our judgment do not see,
save those who are unable to look up from the exceeding greatness of
the world and its contents, and from the beauty of created things, and
to see that they ought to worship, and admire, and reverence Him alone
who made these things, and that it is not befitting to treat with
reverence anything contrived by man, and applied to the honour of God,
whether it be without a reference to the Creator, or with one? (8) For,
to compare with that illimitable excellence, which surpasses all
created being, things which ought not to be brought into comparison
with it, is the act of those whose understanding is darkened. We do not
then say that those who are sharp-sighted are suffering from ophthalmia
or blindness; but we assert that those who, in ignorance of God, give
themselves to temples and images, and so-called sacred seasons, (1) are
blinded in their minds, and especially when, in addition to their
impiety, they live also in licentiousness, not even inquiring after any
honourable work whatever, but doing everything that is of a disgraceful
character.
After having brought against us charges of so serious a kind, he
wishes to make it appear that, although he has others to adduce, he
passes them by in silence. His words are as follows: "These charges I
have to bring against them, and others of a similar nature, not to
enumerate them one by one, and I affirm that they are in error, and
that they act insolently towards God, in order to lead on wicked men by
empty hopes, and to persuade them to despise better things, saying that
if they refrain from them it will be better for them." In answer to
which, it might be said that from the power which shows itself in those
who are converted to Christianity, it is not at all the "wicked" who
are won over to the Gospel, as the more simple class of persons, and,
as many would term them, the "unpolished." (2) For such individuals,
through fear of the punishments that are threatened, which arouses and
exhorts them to refrain from those actions which are followed by
punishments, strive to yield themselves up to the Christian religion,
being influenced by the power of the word to such a degree, that
through fear of what are called in the word "everlasting punishments,"
they despise all the tortures which are devised against them among
men,—even death itself, with countless other evils,—which no wise man
would say is the act of persons of wicked mind. How can temperance and
sober-mindedness, or benevolence and liberality, be practised by a man
of wicked mind? Nay, even the fear of God cannot be felt by such an
one, with respect to which, because it is useful to the many, the
Gospel encourages those who are not yet able to choose that which ought
to be chosen for its own sake, to select it as the greatest blessing,
and one above all promise; for this principle cannot be implanted in
him who prefers to live in wickedness.
But if in these matters any one were to imagine that it is
superstition rather than wickedness which appears in the multitude of
those who believe the word, and should charge our doctrine with making
men superstitious, we shall answer him by saying that, as a certain
legislators replied to the question of one who asked him whether he had
enacted for his citizens the best laws, that he had not given them
absolutely the best, but the best which they were capable of receiving;
so it might be said by the Father of the Christian doctrine, I have
given the best laws and instruction for the improvement of morals of
which the many were capable, not threatening sinners with imaginary
labours and chastisements, but with such as are real, and necessary to
be applied for the correction of those who offer resistance, although
they do not at all understand the object of him who inflicts the
punishment, nor the effect of the labours. For the doctrine of
punishment is both attended with utility, and is agreeable to truth,
and is stated in obscure terms with advantage. (4) Moreover, as for the
most part it is not the wicked whom the ambassadors of Christianity
gain over, neither do we insult God. For we speak regarding Him both
what is true, and what appears to be clear to the multitude, but not so
clear to them as it is to those few who investigate the truths of the
Gospel in a philosophical manner.
Seeing, however, that Celsus alleges that "Christians are won
over by us through vain hopes," we thus' reply to him when he finds
fault with our doctrine of the blessed life, and of communion with God:
"As for you, good sir, they also are won over by vain hopes who have
accepted the doctrine of Pythagoras and Plato regarding the soul, that
it is its nature to ascend to the vaults of heaven, and in the
super-celestial space to behold the sights which are seen by the
blessed spectators above. According to you, O Celsus, they also who
have accepted the doctrine of the duration of the soul (after death),
and who lead a life through which they become heroes, and make their
abodes with the gods, are won over by vain hopes. Probably also they
who are persuaded that the soul comes (into the body) from without, and
that it will be withdrawn from the power of death, (6) would be said by
Celsus to be won over by empty hopes. Let him then come forth to the
contest, no longer concealing the sect to which he belongs, but
confessing himself to be an Epicurean, and let him meet the arguments,
which are not lightly advanced among Greeks and Barbarians, regarding
the immortality of the soul, or its duration (after death), or the
immortality of the thinking principle;, and let him prove that these
are words which deceive with empty hopes those who give their aSsent to
them; but that the adherents of his philosophical system are pure from
empty hopes, and that they indeed lead to hopes of good, or—what is
more in keeping with his opinions—give birth to no hope at all, on
account of the immediate and complete destruction of the soul (after
death). Unless, perhaps, Celsus and the Epicureans will deny that it is
a vain hope which they entertain regarding their
end,—pleasure,—which, according to them, is the supreme good, and
which consists in the permanent health of the body, and the hope
regarding it which is entertained by Epicurus. (2)
And do not suppose that it is not in keeping with the Christian
religion for me to have accepted, against Celsus, the opinions of those
philosophers who have treated of the immortality or after-duration of
the soul; for, holding certain views in common with them, we shall more
conveniently establish our position, that the future life of
blessedness shall be for those only who have accepted the religion
which is according to Jesus, and that devotion towards the Creator of
all things which is pure and sincere, and un-mingled with any created
thing whatever. And let him who likes show what "better things" we
persuade men to despise, and let him compare the blessed end with God
in Christ,—that is, the word, and the wisdom, and all virtue;-which,
according to our view, shall be bestowed,
by the gift of God, on those who have lived a pure and blameless
life, and who have felt a single and undivided love for the God of all
things, with that end which is to follow according to the teaching of
each philosophic sect, whether it be Greek or Barbarian, or according
to the professions of religious mysteries; (3) and let him prove that
the end which is predicted by any of the others is superior to that
which we promise, and consequently that that is true, and ours not
befitting the gift of God, nor those who have lived a good life; or let
him prove that these words were not spoken by the divine Spirit, who
filled the souls of the holy prophets. And let him who likes show that
those words which are acknowledged among all men to be human, are
superior to those which are proved to be divine, and uttered by
inspiration. (4) And what are the "better" things from which we teach
those who receive them that it would be better to abstain? For if it be
not arrogant so to speak, it is self-evident that nothing can be denied
which is better than to entrust oneself to the God of all, and yield
oneself up to the doctrine which raises us above all created things,
and brings us, through the animate and living word—which is also
living wisdom and the Son of God—to God who is over all. However, as
the third book of our answers to the treatise of Celsus has extended to
a sufficient length, we shall here bring our present remarks to a
close, and in what is to follow shall meet what Celsus has subsequently
written.