(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all mistakes found.)

Transliteration of Greek words: All phonetical except: w = omega; h serves
three puposes: 1. = Eta; 2. = rough breathing, when appearing intially
before a vowel; 3. = in the aspirated letters theta = th, phi = ph, chi =
ch. Accents are given immediately after their corresponding vowels: acute =
' , grave = `, circumflex = ^. The character ' doubles as an apostrophe,
when necessary.

ORIGEN

AGAINST CELSUS, BOOKS I-III.

[Translated by the Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D.]

BOOK I.

PREFACE.

   1. WHEN false witnesses testified against our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, He remained silent; and when unfounded charges were brought against
Him, He returned no answer, believing that His whole life and conduct among
the Jews were a better refutation than any answer to the false testimony,
or than any formal defence against the accusations. And I know not, my
pious Ambrosius,[1] why you wished me to write a reply to the false charges
brought by Celsus against the Christians, and to his accusations directed
against the faith of the Churches in his treatise; as if the facts
themselves did not furnish a manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better
answer than any writing, seeing it both disposes of the false statements,
and does not leave to the accusations any credibility or validity. Now,
with respect to our Lord's silence when false witness was borne against
Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the
testimony of Mark is to the same effect. And the words of Matthew are as
follow: "And the high priest and the council sought false witness against
Jesus to put Him to death, but found none, although many false witnesses
came forward. At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said,
I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it
up. And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to
what these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace."[2] And that He
returned no answer when falsely accused, the following is the statement:
"And Jesus stood before the governor; and he asked Him, saying, Art Thou
the King of the Jews? And Jesus said to him, Thou sayest. And when He was
accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then said
Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against
Thee? And He answered him to never a word, insomuch that the governor
marvelled greatly."[3]

   2. It was, indeed, matter of surprise to men even of Ordinary
intelligence, that one who was accused and assailed by false testimony, but
who was able to defend Himself, and to show that He was guilty of none of
the charges (alleged), and who might have enumerated the praiseworthy deeds
of His own life, and His miracles wrought by divine power, so as to give
the judge an opportunity of delivering a more honourable judgment regarding
Him, should not have done this, but should have disdained such a procedure,
and in the nobleness of His nature have contemned His accusers.[4] That the
judge would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had
offered a defence, is clear from what is related of him when he said,
"Which of the two do ye wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or
Jesus, who is called Christ?"[5] and from what the Scripture adds, "For he
knew that for envy they had delivered Him."[6] Jesus, however, is at all
times assailed by false witnesses, hand, while wickedness remains in the
world, is ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent
before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defence in
the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and
one that rises superior to all false witness, and refutes and overthrows
all unfounded accusations and charges.

   3. I venture, then, to say that this "apology" which you require me to
compose will somewhat weaken that defence (of Christianity) which rests on
facts, and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not
altogether devoid of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may not have the
appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which you have
enjoined, we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to suggest, by
way of answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus, what seemed to
us adapted to refute them, although his arguments have no power to shake
the faith of any (true) believer. And forbid, indeed, that any one should
be found who, after having been a partaker in such a love of God as was
(displayed) in Christ Jesus, could be shaken in his purpose by the
arguments of Celsus, or of any such as he. For Paul, when enumerating the
innumerable causes which generally separate men from the love of Christ and
from the love of God in Christ Jesus (to all of which, the love that was in
himself rose superior), did not set down argument among the grounds of
separation. For observe that he says, firstly: "Who shall separate us from
the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or
famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (as it is written, For Thy sake
we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter.) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through
Him that loved us."[1] And secondly, when laying down another series of
causes which naturally tend to separate those who are not firmly grounded
in their religion, he says: "For I am persuaded that neither death, nor
life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor
things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be
able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord."[2]

   4. Now, truly, it is proper that we should feel elated because
afflictions, or those other causes enumerated by Paul, do not separate us
(from Christ); but not that Paul and the other apostles, and any other
resembling them, (should entertain that feeling), because they were far
exalted above such things when they said, "In all these things we are more
than conquerors through Him that loved us,"[3] which is a stronger
statement than that they are simply "conquerors." But if it be proper for
apostles to entertain a feeling of elation in not being separated from the
love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord, that feeling will be
entertained by them, because neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor any of the things that follow, can separate them from
the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. And therefore I do not
congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith can be shaken by Celsus--
who no longer shares the common life of men, but has long since departed--
or by any apparent plausibility of argument.[4] For I do not know in what
rank to place him who has need of arguments written in books in answer to
the charges of Celsus against the Christians, in order to prevent him from
being shaken in his faith, and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since
in the multitude of those who are considered believers some such persons
might be found as would have their faith shaken and overthrown by the
writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a reply to them of such a
nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed
it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an answer to the
treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although
only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a "True
Discourse," as Celsus has entitled it.

   5. Paul, indeed, observing that there are in Greek philosophy certain
things not to be lightly esteemed, which are plausible in the eyes of the
many, but which represent falsehood as truth, says with regard to such:
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after
the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
Christ."[5] And seeing that there was a kind of greatness manifest in the
words of the world's wisdom, he said that the words of the philosophers
were "according to the rudiments of the world." No man of sense, however,
would say that those of Celsus were "according to the rudiments of the
world." Now those words, which contained some element of deceitfulness, the
apostle named "vain deceit," probably by way of distinction from a deceit
that was not "vain;" and the prophet Jeremiah observing this, ventured to
say to God," O LORD, Thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; Thou art
stronger than I, and hast prevailed."[6] But in the language of Celsus
there seems to me to be no deceitfulness at all, not even that which is
"vain;" such deceitfulness, viz., as is found in the language of those who
have founded philosophical sects, and who have been endowed with no
ordinary talent for such pursuits. And as no one would say that any
ordinary error in geometrical demonstrations was intended to deceive, or
would describe it for the sake of exercise in such matters;[7] so those
opinions which are to be styled "vain deceit," and the "tradition of men,"
and "according to the rudiments of the world," must have some resemblance
to the views of those who have been the founders of philosophical sects,
(if such titles are to be appropriately applied to them).

   6. After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus
introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this preface
to the beginning (of the treatise), in order that the reader of our reply
to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book has been
composed not for those who are thorough believers, but for such as are
either wholly unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those who, as
the apostle terms them, are "weak in the faith;" regarding whom he says,
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye."[1] And this preface must be my
apology for beginning my answer to Celsus on one plan, and carrying it on
on another. For my first intention was to indicate his principal
objections, and then briefly the answers that were returned to them, and
subsequently to make a systematic treatise of the whole discourse.[2] But
afterwards, circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be
economical of my time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated
at the commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the
best of my ability, with the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask
indulgence for those portions which follow the preface towards the
beginning of the book. And if you are not impressed by the powerful
arguments which succeed, then, asking similar indulgence also with respect
to them, I refer you, if you still desire an argumentative solution of the
objections of Celsus, to those men who are wiser than myself, and who are
able by words and treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings
against us. But better is the man who, although meeting with the work of
Celsus, needs no answer to it at all, but who despises all its contents,
since they are contemned, and with good reason, by every believer in
Christ, through the Spirit that is in him.

CHAP. I.

   The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw
discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret
associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that "of associations
some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others,
again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws." And his wish is to
bring into disrepute what are termed the "love-feasts "[3] of the
Christians, as if they had their origin in the common danger, and were more
binding than any oaths. Since, then, he babbles about the public law,
alleging that the associations of the Christians are in violation of it, we
have to reply, that if a man were placed among Scythians, whose laws were
unholy,[4] and having no opportunity of escape, were compelled to live
among them, such an one would with good reason, for the sake of the law of
truth, which the Scythians would regard as wickedness,[5] enter into
associations contrary to their laws, with those like-minded with himself;
so, if truth is to decide, the laws of the heathens which relate to images,
and an atheistical polytheism, are "Scythian" laws, or more impious even
than these, if there be any such. It is not irrational, then, to form
associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the
truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret
association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the
liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who
is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of
the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they
may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were,
"Scythian," and despotic.

CHAP. II.

   Celsus next proceeds to say, that the system of doctrine, viz.,
Judaism, upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous in its origin. And
with an appearance of fairness, he does not reproach Christianity[6]
because of its origin among barbarians, but gives the latter credit for
their ability in discovering (such) doctrines. To this, however, he adds
the statement, that the Greeks are more skilful than any others in judging,
establishing, and reducing to practice the discoveries of barbarous
nations. Now this is our answer to his allegations, and our defence of the
truths contained in Christianity, that if any one were to come from the
study of Grecian opinions and usages to the Gospel, he would not only
decide that its doctrines were true, but would by practice establish their
truth, and supply whatever seemed wanting, from a Grecian point of view, to
their demonstration, and thus confirm the truth of Christianity. We have to
say, moreover, that the Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine
than any established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is
called by the apostle the "manifestation of the Spirit and of power:" of
"the Spirit," on account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce
faith in any one who reads them, especially in those things which relate to
Christ; and of "power," because of the signs and wonders which we must
believe to have been performed, both on many other grounds, and on this,
that traces of them are still preserved among those who regulate their
lives by the precepts of the Gospel.

CHAP. III.

   After this, Celsus proceeding to speak of the Christians teaching and
practising their favourite doctrines in secret, and saying that they do
this to ,some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death which is
imminent, he compares their dangers with those which were encountered by
such men as Socrates for the sake of philosophy; and here he might have
mentioned Pythagoras as well, and other philosophers. But our answer to
this is, that in the case of Socrates the Athenians immediately afterwards
repented; and no feeling of bitterness remained in their minds regarding
him, as also happened in the history, of Pythagoras. The followers of the
latter, indeed, for a considerable time established their schools in that
part of Italy called Magna Graecia; but in the case of the Christians, the
Roman Senate, and the princes of the time, and the soldiery, and the
people, and the relatives of those who had become converts to the faith,
made war upon their doctrine, and would have prevented (its progress),
overcoming it by a confederacy of so powerful a nature, had it not, by the
help of God, escaped the danger, and risen above it, so as (finally) to
defeat the whole world in its conspiracy against it.

CHAP. IV.

   Let us notice also how he thinks to cast discredit upon our system of
morals,[1] alleging that it is only common to us with other philosophers,
and no venerable or new branch of instruction. In reply to which we have to
say, that unless all men had naturally impressed upon their minds sound
ideas of morality, the doctrine of the punishment of sinners would have
been excluded by those who bring upon themselves the righteous judgments of
God. It is not therefore matter of surprise that the same God should have
sown in the hearts of all men those truths which He taught by the prophets
and the Saviour, in order that at the divine judgment every man may be
without excuse, having the "requirements[2] of the law written upon his
heart,"--a truth obscurely alluded to by the Bible[3] in what the Greeks
regard as a myth, where it represents God as having with His own finger
written down the commandments, and given them to Moses, and which the
wickedness of the worshippers of the calf made him break in pieces, as if
the flood of wickedness, so to speak, had swept them away. But Moses having
again hewn tables of stone, i God wrote the commandments a second time, and
gave them to him; the prophetic word preparing the soul, as it were, after
the first transgression, for the writing of God a second time.

CHAP. V.

   Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to
Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the
Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, On
the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that
images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in
many instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods. In
what follows, however, wishing to show that this is a common opinion, and
one not first discovered by Christianity, he quotes a saying of Heraclitus
to this effect: "That those who draw near to lifeless images, as if they
were gods, act in a similar manner to those who would enter into
conversation with houses." Respecting this, then, we have to say, that
ideas were implanted in the minds of men like the principles of morality,
from which not only Heraclitus, but any other Greek or barbarian, might by
reflection have deduced the same conclusion; for he states that the
Persians also were of the same opinion, quoting Herodotus as his authority.
We also can add to these Zeno of Citium, who in his Polity, says: "And
there will be no need to build temples, for nothing ought to be regarded as
sacred, or of much value, or holy, which is the work of builders and of
mean men." It is evident, then, with respect to this opinion (as well as
others), that there has been en-graven upon the hearts of men by the finger
of God a sense of the duty that is required.

CHAP. VI.

   After this, through the influence of some motive which is unknown to
me, Celsus asserts that it is by the names of certain demons, and by the
use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of
(miraculous) power; hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who expel
evil spirits by incantations. And here he manifestly appears to malign the
Gospel. For it is not by incantations that Christians seem to prevail (over
evil spirits), but by the name of Jesus, accompanied by the announcement of
the narratives which relate to Him; for the repetition of these has
frequently been the means of driving demons out of men, especially when
those who repeated them did so in a sound and genuinely believing spirit.
Such power, indeed, does the name of Jesus possess over evil spirits, that
there have been instances where it was effectual, when it was pronounced
even by bad men, which Jesus Himself taught (would be the case), when He
said: "Many shall say to Me in that day, In Thy name we have cast out
devils, and done many wonderful works."[1] Whether Celsus omitted this from
intentional malignity, or from ignorance, I do not know. And he next
proceeds to bring a charge against the Saviour Himself, alleging that it
was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He
performed; and that foreseeing that others would attain the same knowledge,
and do the same things, making a boast of doing them by help of the power
of God, He excludes such from His kingdom. And his accusation is, that if
they are justly excluded, while He Himself is guilty of the same practices,
He is a wicked man; but if He is not guilty of wickedness in doing such
things, neither are they who do the same as He. But even if it be
impossible to show by what power Jesus wrought these miracles, it is clear
that Christians employ no spells or incantations, but the simple, name of
Jesus, and certain other words in which they repose faith, according to the
holy Scriptures.

CHAP. VII.

   Moreover, since he frequently calls the Christian doctrine a secret
system (of belief), we must confute him on this point also, since almost
the entire world is better acquainted with what Christians preach than with
the favourite opinions of philosophers. For who is ignorant of the
statement that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that He was crucified, and
that His resurrection is an article of faith among many, and that a general
judgment is announced to come, in which the wicked are to be punished
according to their deserts, and the righteous to be duly rewarded? And yet
the mystery of the resurrection, not being understood,[2] is made a subject
of ridicule among unbelievers. In these circumstances, to speak of the
Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd. But that there
should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are
(revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity
of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain
truths are exoteric and others esoteric. Some of the hearers of Pythagoras
were content with his ipse dixit; while others were taught in secret those
doctrines which were not deemed fit to be communicated to profane and
insufficiently prepared ears. Moreover, all the mysteries that are
celebrated everywhere throughout Greece and barbarous countries, although
held in secret, have no discredit thrown upon them, so that it is in vain
that he endeavours to calumniate the secret doctrines of Christianity,
seeing he does not correctly understand its nature.

CHAP. VIII.

   It is with a certain eloquence,[3] indeed, that he appears to advocate
the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their
death, in the following words: "And I do not maintain that if a man, who
has adopted a system of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that
account, he should either apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his
opinions." And he condemns those who, while holding the Christian views,
either pretend that they do not, or deny them, saying that "he who holds a
certain opinion ought not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it." And
here Celsus must be convicted of self-contradiction. For from other
treatises of his it is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here,
because he thought that he could assail Christianity with better effect by
not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a
something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin
to God, and says that "they in whom this element, viz., the soul, is in a
healthy condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, mean ing
God, and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to
remembrance." Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said a
little before, that "the man who had embraced a system of good doctrine
ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men, to disavow
it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown it," he now
involves himself in all manner of contradictions. For he knew that if he
acknowledged himself an Epicurean, he would not obtain any credit when
accusing those who, in any degree, introduce the doctrine of Providence,
and who place a God over the world. And we have heard that there were two
individuals of the name of Celsus, both of whom were Epicureans; the
earlier of the two having lived in the time of Nero, but this one in that
of Adrian, and later.

CHAP. IX.

   He next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting opinions we should
follow reason and a rational guide,[4] since he who assents to opinions
without following this course is very liable to be deceived. And he
compares inconsiderate believers to Metragyrtae, and soothsayers, and
Mithrae, and Sabbadians, and to anything else that one may fall in with,
and to the phantoms of Hecate, or any other demon or demons. For as amongst
such persons are frequently to be found wicked men, who, taking advantage
of the ignorance of those who are easily deceived, lead them away whither
they will, so also, he says, is the case among Christians. And he asserts
that certain persons who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for
their belief, keep repeating, "Do not examine, but believe!" and, "Your
faith will save you!" And he alleges that such also say, "The wisdom of
this life is bad, but that foolishness is a good thing!" To which we have
to answer, that if it were possible for all to leave the business of life,
and devote themselves to philosophy, no other method ought to be adopted by
any one, but this alone. For in the Christian system also it will be found
that there is, not to speak at all arrogantly, at least as much of
investigation into articles of belief, and of explanation of dark sayings,
occurring in the prophetical writings, and of the parables in the Gospels,
and of countless other things, which either were narrated or enacted with a
symbolical signification,[1] (as is the case with other systems). But since
the course alluded to is impossible, partly on account of the necessities
of life, partly on account of the weakness of men, as only a very few
individuals devote themselves earnestly to study,[2] what better method
could be devised with a view of assisting the multitude, than that which
was delivered by Jesus to the heathen? And let us inquire, with respect to
the great multitude of believers, who have washed away the mire of
wickedness in which they formerly wallowed, whether it were better for them
to believe without a reason, and (so) to have become reformed and improved
in their habits, through the belief that men are chastised for sins, and
honoured for good works or not to have allowed themselves to be converted
on the strength of mere faith, but have waited) until they could give
themselves to a thorough examination of the (necessary) reasons. For it is
manifest that, (on such a plan), all men, with very few exceptions, would
not obtain this (amelioration of conduct) which they have obtained through
a simple faith, but would continue to remain in the practice of a wicked
life. Now, whatever other evidence can be furnished of the fact, that it
was not without divine intervention that the philanthropic scheme of
Christianity was introduced among men, this also must be added. For a pious
man will not believe that even a physician of the body, who restores the
sick to better health, could take up his abode in any city or country
without divine permission, since no good happens to men without the help of
God. And if he who has cured the bodies of many, or restored them to better
health, does not effect his cures without the help of God, how much more He
who has healed the souls of many, and has turned them (to virtue), and
improved their nature, and attached them to God who is over all things, and
taught them to refer every action to His good pleasure, and to shun all
that is displeasing to Him, even to the least of their words or deeds, or
even of the thoughts of their hearts ?

CHAP. X.

   In the next place, since our opponents keep repeating those statements
about faith, we must say that, considering it as a useful thing for the
multitude, we admit that we teach those men to believe without reasons, who
are unable to abandon all other employments, and give themselves to an
examination of arguments; and our opponents, although they do not
acknowledge it, yet practically do the same. For who is there that, on
betaking himself to the study of philosophy, and throwing himself into the
ranks of some sect, either by chance,[3] or because he is provided with a
teacher of that school, adopts such a course for any other reason, except
that he believes his particular sect to be superior to any other? For, not
waiting to hear the arguments of all the other philosophers, and of all the
different sects, and the reasons for condemning one system and for
supporting another, he in this way elects to become a Stoic, e.g., or a
Platonist, or a Peripatetic, or an Epicurean, or a follower of some other
school, and is thus borne, although they will not admit it, by a kind of
irrational impulse to the practice, say of Stoicism, to the disregard of
the others; despising either Platonism, as being marked by greater humility
than the others; or Peripateticism, as more human, and as admitting with
more fairness[4] than other systems the blessings of human life. And some
also, alarmed at first sight[5] about the doctrine of providence, from
seeing what happens in the world to the vicious and to the virtuous, have
rashly concluded that there is no divine providence at all, and have
adopted the views of Epicurus and Celsus.

CHAP. XI.

   Since, then, as reason teaches, we must repose faith in some one of
those who have been the introducers of sects among the Greeks or
Barbarians, why should we not rather believe in God who is over all things,
and in Him who teaches that worship is due to God alone, and that other
things are to be passed by, either as non-existent, or as existing indeed,
and worthy of honour, but not of worship and reverence? And respecting
these things, he who not only believes, but who contemplates things with
the eye of reason, will state the demonstrations that occur to him, and
which are the result of careful investigation. And why should it not be
more reasonable, seeing all human things are dependent upon faith, to
believe God rather than them? For who enters on a voyage, or contracts a
marriage, or becomes the father of children, or casts seed into the ground,
without believing that better things will result from so doing, although
the contrary might and sometimes does happen? And yet the belief that
better things, even agreeably to their wishes, will follow, makes all men
venture upon uncertain enterprises, which may turn out differently from
what they expect. And if the hope and belief of a better future be the
support of life in every uncertain enterprise, why shall not this faith
rather be rationally accepted by him who believes on better grounds than he
who sails the sea, or tills the ground, or marries a wife, or engages in
any other human pursuit, in the existence of a God who was the Creator of
all these things, and in Him who with surpassing wisdom and divine
greatness of mind dared to make known this doctrine to men in every part of
the world, at the cost of great danger, and of a death considered infamous,
which He underwent for the sake of the human race; having also taught those
who were persuaded to embrace His doctrine at the first, to proceed, under
the peril of every danger, and of ever impending death, to all quarters of
the world to ensure the salvation of men?

CHAP. XII.

   In the next place, when Celsus says in express words, "If they would
answer me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am acquainted
with all their opinions, but because I take an equal interest in them all,
it would be well. And if they will not, but will keep reiterating, as they
generally do, 'Do not investigate,' etc., they must, he continues, explain
to me at least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and
whence they are derived," etc. Now, with regard to his statement that he
"is acquainted with all our doctrines," we have to say that this is a
boastful and daring assertion; for if he had read the prophets in
particular, which are full of acknowledged difficulties, and of
declarations that are obscure to the multitude, and if he had perused the
parables of the Gospels, and the other writings of the law and of the
Jewish history, and the utterances of the apostles, and had read them
candidly, with a desire to enter into their meaning, he would not have
expressed himself with such boldness, nor said that he "was acquainted with
all their doctrines." Even we ourselves, who have devoted much study to
these writings, would not say that "we were acquainted with everything,"
for we have a regard for truth. Not one of us will assert, "I know all the
doctrines of Epicurus," or will be confident that he knows all those of
Plato, in the knowledge of the fact that so many differences of opinion
exist among the expositors of these systems. For who is so daring as to say
that he knows all the opinions of the Stoics or of the Peripatetics?
Unless, indeed, it should be the case that he has heard this boast, "I know
them all," from some ignorant and senseless individuals, who do not
perceive their own ignorance, and should thus imagine, from having had such
persons as his teachers, that he was acquainted with them all. Such an one
appears to me to act very much as a person would do who had visited Egypt
(where the Egyptian savans, learned in their country's literature, are
greatly given to philosophizing about those things which are regarded among
them as divine, but where the vulgar, hearing certain myths, the reasons of
which they do not understand, are greatly elated because of their fancied
knowledge), and who should imagine that he is acquainted with the whole
circle of Egyptian knowledge, after having been a disciple of the ignorant
alone, and without having associated with any of the priests, or having
learned the mysteries of the Egyptians from any other source. And what I
have said regarding the learned and ignorant among the Egyptians, I might
have said also of the Persians; among whom there are mysteries, conducted
on rational principles by the learned among them, but understood in a
symbolical sense by the more superficial of the multitude.[1] And the same
remark applies to the Syrians, and Indians, and to all those who have a
literature and a mythology.

CHAP. XIII.

   But since Celsus has declared it to be a saying of many Christians,
that "the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that foolishness is
good," we have to answer that he slanders the Gospel, not giving the words
as they actually occur in the writings of Paul, where they run as follow:
"If any one among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a
fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness
with God."[2] The apostle, therefore, does not say simply that "wisdom is
foolishness with God," but "the wisdom of this world." And again, not, "If
any one among you seemeth to be wise, let him become a fool universally;"
but, "let him become a fool in this world, that he may become wise." We
term, then, "the wisdom of this world," every false system of philosophy,
which, according to the Scriptures, is brought to nought; and we call
foolishness good, not without restriction, but when a man becomes foolish
as to this world. As if we were to say that the Platonist, who believes in
the immortality of the soul, and in the doctrine of its metempsychosis,,
incurs the charge of folly with the Stoics, who discard this opinion; and
with the Peripatetics, who babble about the subtleties of Plato; and with
the Epicureans, who call it superstition to introduce a providence, and to
place a God over all things. Moreover, that it is in agreement with the
spirit of Christianity, of much more importance to give our assent to
doctrines upon grounds of reason and wisdom than on that of faith merely,
and that it was only in certain circumstances that the latter course was
desired by Christianity, in order not to leave men altogether without help,
is shown by that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, when he says: "For after
that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased
God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."[2] Now by
these words it is clearly shown that it is by the wisdom of God that God
ought to be known. But as this result did not follow, it pleased God a
second time to save them that believe, not by "folly" universally, but by
such foolishness as depended on preaching. For the preaching of Jesus
Christ as crucified is the "foolishness" of preaching, as Paul also
perceived, when he said, "But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a
stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them who are called,
both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and wisdom of God."[3]

CHAP. XIV.

   Celsus, being of opinion that there is to be found among many nations a
general relationship of doctrine, enumerates all the nations which gave
rise to such and such opinions; but for some reason, unknown to me, he
casts a slight upon the Jews, not including them amongst the others, as
having either laboured along with them, and arrived at the same
conclusions, or as having entertained similar opinions on many subjects. It
is proper, therefore, to ask him why he gives credence to the histories of
Barbarians and Greeks respecting the antiquity of those nations of whom he
speaks, but stamps the histories of this nation alone as false. For if the
respective writers related the events which are found in these works in the
spirit of truth, why should we distrust the prophets of the Jews alone? And
if Moses and the prophets have recorded many things in their history from a
desire to favour their own system, why should we not say the same of the
historians of other countries? Or, when the Egyptians or their histories
speak evil of the Jews, are they to be believed on that point; but the
Jews, when saying the same things of the Egyptians, and declaring that they
had suffered great injustice at their hands, and that on this account they
had been punished by God, are to be charged with falsehood? And this
applies not to the Egyptians alone, but to others; for we shall find that
there was a connection between the Assyrians and the Jews, and that this is
recorded in the ancient histories of the Assyrians. And so also the Jewish
historians (I avoid using the word "prophets," that I may not appear to
prejudge the case) have related that the Assyrians were enemies of the
Jews. Observe at once, then, the arbitrary procedure of this individual,
who believes the histories of these nations on the ground of their being
learned, and condemns others as being wholly ignorant. For listen to the
statement of Celsus: "There is," he says, "an authoritative account from
the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among
all the most learned nations, and cities, and men." And yet he will not
call the Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the
Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and
Samothracians, and Eleusinians.

   How much more impartial than Celsus is Numenius the Pythagorean, who
has given many proofs of being a very eloquent man, and who has carefully
tested many opinions, and collected together from many sources what had the
appearance of truth; for, in the first hook of his treatise On the Good,
speaking of those nations who have adopted the opinion that God is
incorporeal, he enumerates the Jews also among those who hold this view;
not showing any reluctance to use even the language of their prophets in
his treatise, and to give it a metaphorical signification. It is said,
moreover, that Hermippus has recorded in his first book, On Lawgivers, that
it was from the Jewish people that Pythagoras derived the philosophy which
he introduced among the Greeks. And there is extant a work by the historian
Hecataeus, treat ing of the Jews, in which so high a character is bestowed
upon that nation for its learning, that Herennius Philo, in his treatise on
the Jews, has doubts in the first place, whether it is really the
composition of the historian; and says, in the second place, that if really
his, it is probable that he was carried away by the plausible nature of the
Jewish history, and so yielded his assent to their system.

CHAP. XVI.

   I must express my surprise that Celsus should class the Odrysians, and
Samothracians, and Eleusinians, and Hyperboreans among the most ancient and
learned nations, and should not deem the Jews worthy of a place among such,
either for their learning or their antiquity, although there are many
treatises in circulation among the Egyptians, and Phoenicians, and Greeks,
which testify to their existence as an ancient people, but which I have
considered it unnecessary to quote. For any one who chooses may read what
Florins Josephus has recorded in his two books, On the Antiquity, of the
Jews, where he brings together a great collection of writers, who bear
witness to the antiquity of the Jewish people; and there exists the
Discourse to the Greeks of Tatian the younger,[2] in which with very great
learning he enumerates those historians who have treated of the antiquity
of the Jewish nation and of Moses. It seems, then, to be not from a love of
truth, but from a spirit of hatred, that Celsus makes these statements, his
object being to asperse the origin of Christianity, which is connected with
Judaism. Nay, he styles the Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the
Gauls, and the Getae, most learned and ancient tribes, on account of the
resemblance between their traditions and those of the Jews, although I know
not whether any of their histories survive; but the Hebrews alone, as far
as in him lies, he deprives of the honour both of antiquity and learning.
And again, when making a list of ancient and learned men who have conferred
benefits upon their contemporaries (by their deeds), and upon posterity by
their writings, he excluded Moses from the number; while of Linus, to whom
Celsus assigns a foremost place in his list, there exists neither laws nor
discourses which produced a change for the better among any tribes; whereas
a whole nation, dispersed throughout the entire world, obey the laws of
Moses. Consider, then, whether it is not from open malevolence that he has
expelled Moses from his catalogue of learned men, while asserting that
Linus, and Musaeus, and Orpheus, and Pherecydes, and the Persian Zoroaster,
and Pythagoras, discussed these topics, and that their opinions were
deposited in books, and have thus been preserved down to the present time.
And it is intentionally also that he has omitted to take notice of the
myth, embellished chiefly by Orpheus, in which the gods are described as
affected by human weaknesses and passions.

CHAP. XVII.

   In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with
those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one
might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title of a
True Discourse, "Why, good sir, do you make it a boast to have it recorded
that the gods should engage in such adventures as are described by your
learned poets and philosophers, and be guilty of abominable intrigues, and
of engaging in wars against their own fathers, and of cutting off their
secret parts, and should dare to commit and to suffer such enormities;
while Moses, who gives no such accounts respecting God, nor even regarding
the holy angels, and who relates deeds of far less atrocity regarding men
(for in his writings no one ever ventured to commit such crimes as Kronos
did against Uranus, or Zeus against his father, or that of the father of
men and gods, who had intercourse with his own daughter), should be
considered as having deceived those who were placed under his laws, and to
have led them into error?" And here Celsus seems to me to act somewhat as
Thrasymachns the Platonic philosopher did, when he would not allow Socrates
to answer regarding justice, as he wished, but said, "Take care not to say
that utility is justice, or duty, or anything of that kind." For in like
manner Celsus as sails (as he thinks) the Mosaic histories, and finds fault
with those who understand them allegorically, at the same time bestowing
also some praise upon those who do so, to the effect that they are more
impartial (than those who do not); and thus, as it were, he prevents by his
cavils those who are able to show the true state of the case from offering
such a defence as they would wish to offer.[3]

CHAP. XVIII.

   And challenging a comparison of book with book, I would say, "Come now,
good sir, take down the poems of Linus, and of Musaeus, and of Orpheus, and
the writings of Pherecydes, and carefully compare these with the laws of
Moses--histories with histories, and ethical discourses with laws and
commandments--and see which of the two are the better fitted to change the
character of the hearer on the very spot, and which to harden[1] him in his
wickedness; and observe that your series of writers display little concern
for those readers who are to peruse them at once unaided,[2] but have
composed their philosophy (as you term it) for those who are able to
comprehend its metaphorical and allegorical signification; whereas Moses,
like a distinguished orator who meditates some figure of Rhetoric, and who
carefully introduces in every part language of twofold meaning, has done
this in his five books: neither affording, in the portion which relates to
morals, any handle to his Jewish subjects for committing evil; nor yet
giving to the few individuals who were endowed with greater wisdom, and who
were capable of investigating his meaning, a treatise devoid of material
for speculation. But of your learned poets the very writings would seem no
longer to be preserved, although they would have been carefully treasured
up if the readers had perceived any benefit (likely to be derived from
them); whereas the works of Moses have stirred up many, who were even
aliens to the manners of the Jews, to the belief that, as these writings
testify, the first who enacted these laws and delivered them to Moses, was
the God who was the Creator of the world. For it became the Creator of the
universe, after laying down laws for its government, to confer upon His
words a power which might subdue all men in every part of the earth.[3] And
this I maintain, having as yet entered into no investigation regarding
Jesus, but still demonstrating that Moses, who is far inferior to the Lord,
is, as the Discourse will show, greatly superior to your wise poets and
philosophers."

CHAP. XIX.

   After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit
upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is
not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing
his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is
uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many
conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place
in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates
to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world
was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by
what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have
been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which
occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of
Phaethon, were more recent than any others. And if he should put forward
the dialogues of Plato (as evidence) on these subjects, we shall say to him
that it is allowable for us also to believe that there resided in the pure
and pious soul of Moses, who ascended above all created things, and united
himself to the Creator of the universe, and who made known divine things
with far greater clearness than Plato, or those other wise men (who lived)
among the Greeks and Romans, a spirit which was divine. And if he demands
of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own
unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is
the correct one.

CHAP. XX.

   And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the
world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he
says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to
the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any
memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for the
myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons who, in
his opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians, traces of whose wisdom
are to be found in the worship of irrational animals, and in arguments
which prove that such a worship of God is in conformity with reason, and of
a secret and mysterious character. The Egyptians, then, when they
boastfully give their own account of the divinity of animals, are to be
considered wise; but if any Jew, who has signified his adherence to the law
and the lawgiver, refer everything to the Creator of the universe, and the
only God, he is, in the opinion of Celsus and those like him, deemed
inferior to him who degrades the Divinity not only to the level of rational
and mortal animals, but even to that of irrational also!--a view which goes
far beyond the mythical doctrine of transmigration, according to which the
soul falls down from the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of
brute beasts, both tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables of
this kind, they are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their
enigmas and mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories
and laws for an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables,
the language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!

CHAP. XXI.

   The following is the view of Celsus and the Epicureans: "Moses having,"
he says, "learned the doctrine which is to be found existing among wise
nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity." Now, in
answer to this we have to say, that it may be allowed him that. Moses did
indeed hear a somewhat ancient doctrine, and transmitted the same to the
Hebrews; that if the doctrine which he heard was false, and neither pious
nor venerable, and if notwithstanding, he received it and handed it down to
those under his authority, he is liable to censure; but if, as you assert,
he gave his adherence to opinions that were wise and true, and educated his
people by means of them, what, pray, has he done deserving of condemnation?
Would, indeed, that not only Epicurus, but Aristotle, whose sentiments
regarding providence are not so impious (as those of the former), and the
Stoics, who assert that God is a body, had heard such a doctrine !Then the
world would not have been filled with opinions which either disallow or
enfeeble the action of providence, or introduce a corrupt corporeal
principle, according to which the god of the Stoics is a body, with respect
to whom they are not afraid to say that he is capable of change, and may be
altered and transformed in all his parts, and, generally, that he is
capable of corruption, if there be any one to corrupt him, but that he has
the good fortune to escape corruption, because there is none to corrupt.
Whereas the doctrine of the Jews and Christians, which preserves the
immutability and unalterableness of the divine nature, is stigmatized as
impious, because it does not partake of the profanity of those whose
notions of God are marked by impiety, but because it says in the
supplication addressed to the Divinity, "Thou art the same,"[1] it being,
moreover, an article of faith that God has said, "I change not."[2]

CHAP. XXII.

   After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised by the
Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians; thus
believing the Egyptians rather than Moses, who says that Abraham was the
first among men who practised the rite. And it is not Moses alone who
mentions the name of Abraham, assigning to him great intimacy with God; but
many also of those who give themselves to the practice of the conjuration
of evil spirits, employ in their spells the expression "God of Abraham,"
pointing out by the very name the friendship (that existed) between that
just man and God. And yet, while making use of the phrase "God of Abraham,"
they do not know who Abraham is! And the same remark applies to Isaac, and
Jacob, and Israel; which names, although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently
introduced by those Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result
by means of their knowledge. The rite of circumcision, however, which began
with Abraham, and was discontinued by Jesus, who desired that His disciples
should not practise it, is not before us for explanation; for the present
occasion does not lead us to speak of such things, but to make an effort to
refute the charges brought against the doctrine of the Jews by Celsus, who
thinks that he will be able the more easily to establish the falsity of
Christianity, if, by assailing its origin in Judaism, he can show that the
latter also is untrue.

CHAP. XXIII.

   After this, Celsus next asserts that "Those herdsmen and shepherds who
followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits,
and so supposed that there was one God." Let him show, then, how, after
this irrational departure, as he regards it, of the herdsmen and shepherds
from the worship of many gods, he himself is able to establish the
multiplicity of deities that are found amongst the Greeks, or among those
other nations that are called Barbarian. Let him establish, therefore, the
existence of Mnemosyne, the mother of the Muses by Zeus; or of Themis, the
parent of the Hours; or let him prove that the ever naked Graces can have a
real, substantial existence. But he will not be able to show, from any
actions of theirs, that these fictitious representations[3] of the Greeks,
which have the appearance of being invested with bodies, are (really) gods.
And why should the fables of the Greeks regarding the gods be true, any
more than those of the Egyptians for example, who in their language know
nothing of a Mnemosyne, mother of the nine Muses; nor of a Themis, parent
of the Hours; nor of a Euphrosyne, one of the Graces; nor of any other of
these names? How much more manifest (and how much better than all these
inventions!) is it that, convinced by what we see, in the admirable order
of the world, we should worship the Maker of it as the one Author of one
effect, and which, as being wholly in harmony with itself, cannot on that
account have been the work of many makers; and that we should believe that
the whole heaven is not held together by the movements of many souls, for
one is enough, which bears the whole of the non-wandering[4] sphere from
east to west, and embraces within it all things which the world requires,
and which are not self-existing! For all are parts of the world, while God
is no part of the whole. But God cannot be imperfect, as a part is
imperfect. And perhaps profounder consideration will show, that as God is
not a part, so neither is He properly the whole, since the whole is
composed of parts; and reason will not allow us to believe that the God who
is over all is composed of parts, each one of which cannot do what all the
other parts, can.

CHAP. XXIV.

   After this he continues: "These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that
there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the
Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they
delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that." And in a
subsequent part of his work he says, that "It makes no difference whether
the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is
current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the
Indians or Egyptians," Now, in answer to this, we have to remark that this
involves a deep and mysterious subject--that, viz., respecting the nature
of names: it being a question whether, as Aristotle thinks, names were
bestowed by arrangement, or, as the Stoics hold, by nature; the first words
being imitations of things, agreeably to which the names were formed, and
in conformity with which they introduce certain principles of etymology; or
whether, as Epicurus teaches (differing in this from the Stoics), names
were given by nature,--the first men having uttered certain words varying
with the circumstances in which they found themselves. If, then, we shall
be able to establish, in reference to the preceding statement, the nature
of powerful names, some of which are used by the learned amongst the
Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian
philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Samanaeans, and others in different
countries; and shall be able to make out that the so-called magic is not,
as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle suppose, an altogether uncertain
thing, but is, as those skilled in it prove, a consistent system, having
words which are known to exceedingly few; then we say that the name
Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence
among the Hebrews, are not applicable to any ordinary created things, but
belong to a secret theology which refers to the Framer of all things. These
names, accordingly, when pronounced with that attendant train of
circumstances which is appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great
power; and other names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are
efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain things; and
other names in the Persian language have corresponding power over other
spirits; and so on in every individual nation, for different purposes. And
thus it will be found that, of the various demons upon the earth, to whom
different localities have been assigned, each one bears a name appropriate
to the several dialects of place and country. He, therefore, who has a
nobler idea, however small, of these matters, will be careful not to apply
differing names to different things; lest he should resemble those who
mistakenly apply the name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down the
title of "the Good" from the First Cause, or from virtue and excellence,
and apply it to blind Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned
mixture of flesh and blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble
birth.[1]

CHAP. XXV.

   And perhaps there is a danger as great as that which degrades the name
of "God," or of "the Good," to improper objects, in changing the name of
God according to a secret system, and applying those which belong to
inferior beings to greater, and vice versa. And I do not dwell on this,
that when the name of Zeus is uttered, there is heard at the same time that
of the son of Kronos and Rhea, and the husband of Hera, and brother of
Poseidon, and father of Athene, and Artemis, who was guilty of incest with
his own daughter Persephone; or that Apollo immediately suggests the son of
Leto and Zeus, and the brother of Artemis, and half-brother of Hermes; and
so with all the other names invented by these wise men of Celsus, who are
the parents of these opinions, and the ancient theologians of the Greeks.
For what are the grounds for deciding that he should on the one hand be
properly called Zeus, and yet on the other should not have Kronos for his
father and Rhea for his mother? And the same argument applies to all the
others that are called gods. But this charge does not at all apply to those
who, for some mysterious reason, refer the word Sabaoth, or Adonai, or any
of the other names to the (true) God. And when one is able to philosophize
about the mystery of names, he will find much to say respecting the titles
of the angels of God, of whom one is called Michael, and another Gabriel,
and another Raphael, appropriately to the duties which they discharge in
the world, according to the will of the God of all things. And a similar
philosophy of names applies also to our Jesus, whose name has already been
seen, in an unmistakeable manner, to have expelled myriads of evil spirits
from the souls and bodies (of men), so great was the power which it exerted
upon those from whom the spirits were driven out. And while still upon the
subject of names, we have to mention that those who are skilled in the use
of incantations, relate that the utterance of the same incantation in its
proper language can accomplish what the spell professes to do; but when
translated into any other tongue, it is observed to become inefficacious
and feeble. And thus it is not the things signified, but the qualities and
peculiarities of words, which possess a certain power for this or that
purpose. And so on such grounds as these we defend the conduct of the
Christians, when they struggle even to death to avoid calling God by the
name of Zeus, or to give Him a name from any other language. For they
either use the common name--God--indefinitely, or with some such addition
as that of the "Maker of all things," "the Creator of heaven and earth"--He
who sent down to the human race those good men, to whose names that of God
being added, certain mighty works are wrought among men. And much more
besides might be said on the subject of names, against those who think that
we ought to be indifferent as to our use of them. And if the remark of
Plato in the Philebus should surprise us, when he says, "My fear, O
Protagoras, about the names of the gods is no small one," seeing Philebus
in his discussion with Socrates had called pleasure a "god," how shall we
not rather approve the piety of the Christians, who apply none of the names
used in the mythologies to the Creator of the world? And now enough on this
subject for the present.

CHAP. XXVI.

   But let us see the manner in which this Celsus, who professes to know
everything, brings a false accusation against the Jews, when he alleges
that "they worship angels, and are addicted to sorcery, in which Moses was
their instructor." Now, in what part of the writings of Moses he found the
lawgiver laying down the worship of angels, let him tell, who professes to
know all about Christianity and Judaism; and let him show also how sorcery
can exist among those who have accepted the Mosaic law, and read the
injunction, "Neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them."[1]
Moreover, he promises to show afterwards "how it was through ignorance that
the Jews were deceived and led into error." Now, if he had discovered that
the ignorance of the Jews regarding Christ was the effect of their not
having heard the prophecies about Him, he would show with truth how the
Jews fell into error. But without any wish whatever that this should
appear, he views as Jewish errors what are no errors at all. And Celsus
having promised to make us acquainted, in a subsequent part of his work,
with the doctrines of Judaism, proceeds in the first place to speak of our
Saviour as having been the leader of our generation, in so far as we are
Christians,[2] and says that "a few years ago he began to teach this
doctrine, being regarded by Christians as the Son of God." Now, with
respect to this point--His prior existence a few years ago--we have to
remark as follows. Could it have come to pass without divine assistance,
that Jesus, desiring during these years to spread abroad His words and
teaching, should have been so successful, that everywhere throughout the
world, not a few persons, Greeks as well as Barbarians, learned as well as
ignorant, adopted His doctrine, so that they struggled, even to death in
its defence, rather than deny it, which no one is ever related to have done
for any other system? I indeed, from no wish to flatter[3] Christianity,
but from a desire thoroughly to examine the facts, would say that even
those who are engaged in the healing of numbers of sick persons, do not
attain their object--the cure of the body--without divine help; and if one
were to succeed in delivering souls from a flood of wickedness, and
excesses, and acts of injustice, and from a contempt of God, and were to
show, as evidence of such a result, one hundred persons improved in their
natures (let us suppose the number to be so large), no one would reasonably
say that it was without divine assistance that he had implanted in those
hundred individuals a doctrine capable of removing so many evils. And if
any one, on a candid consideration of these things, shall admit that no
improvement ever takes place among men without divine help, how much more
confidently shall he make the same assertion regarding Jesus, when he
compares the former lives of many converts to His doctrine with their after
conduct, and reflects in what acts of licentiousness and injustice and
covetousness they formerly indulged, until, as Celsus, and they who think
with him, allege, "they were deceived," and accepted a doctrine which, as
these individuals assert, is destructive of the life of men; but who, from
the time that they adopted it, have become in some way meeker, and more
religious, and more consistent, so that certain among them, from a desire
of exceeding chastity, and a wish to worship God with greater purity,
abstain even from the permitted indulgences of (lawful) love.

CHAP. XXVII.

   Any one who examines the subject will see that Jesus attempted and
successfully accomplished works beyond the reach of human power. For
although, from the very beginning, all things opposed the spread of His
doctrine in the world, --both the princes of the times, and their chief
captains and generals, and all, to speak generally, who were possessed of
the smallest influence, and in addition to these, the rulers of the
different cities, and the soldiers, and the people,--yet it proved
victorious, as being the Word of God, the nature of which is such that it
cannot be hindered; and becoming more powerful than all such adversaries,
it made itself master of the whole of Greece, and a considerable portion of
Barbarian lands, and convened countless numbers of souls to His religion.
And although, among the multitude of converts to Christianity, the simple
and ignorant necessarily outnumbered the more intelligent, as the former
class always does the latter, yet Celsus, unwilling to take note of this,
thinks that this philanthropic doctrine, which reaches to every soul under
the sun, is vulgar,[1] and on account of its vulgarity and its want of
reasoning power, obtained a hold only over the ignorant. And yet he himself
admits that it was not the simple alone who were led by the doctrine of
Jesus to adopt His religion; for he acknowledges that there were amongst
them some persons of moderate intelligence, and gentle disposition, and
possessed of understanding, and capable of comprehending allegories.

CHAP. XXVIII.

   And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he
introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and
speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of
a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his
statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion,
the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him
disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and
in the first place, he accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a
virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of
a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and
who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because
she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband,
and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an
illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on
account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers,
on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own
country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed
himself a God." Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to
remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I
give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the
predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.

CHAP. XXIX.

   For birth is an aid towards an individual's becoming famous, and
distinguished, and talked about; viz., when a man's parents happen to be in
a position of rank and influence, and are possessed of wealth, and are able
to spend it upon the education of their son, and when the country of one's
birth is great and illustrious; but when a man having all these things
against him is able, notwithstanding these hindrances, to make himself
known, and to produce an impression on those who hear of him, and to become
distinguished and visible to the whole world, which speaks of him as it did
not do before, how can we help admiring such a nature as being both noble
in itself, and devoting itself to great deeds, and possessing a courage
which is not by any means to be despised? And if one were to examine more
fully the history of such an individual, why should he not seek to know in
what manner, after being reared up in frugality and poverty, and without
receiving any complete education, and without having studied systems and
opinions by means of which he might have acquired confidence to associate
with multitudes, and play the demagogue, and attract to himself many
hearers, he nevertheless devoted himself to the teaching of new opinions,
introducing among men a doctrine which not only subverted the customs of
the Jews, while preserving due respect for their prophets, but which
especially overturned the established observances of the Greeks regarding
the Divinity? And how could such a person--one who had been so brought up,
and who, as his calumniators admit, had learned nothing great from men--
have been able to teach, in a manner not at all to be despised, such
doctrines as he did regarding the divine judgment, and the punishments that
are to overtake wickedness, and the rewards that are to be conferred upon
virtue; so that not only rustic and ignorant individuals were won by his
words, but also not a few of those who were distinguished by their wisdom,
and who were able to discern the hidden meaning in those more common
doctrines, as they were considered, which were in circulation, and which
secret meaning enwrapped, so to speak, some more recondite' signification
still? The Seriphian, in Plato, who reproaches Themistocles after he had
become celebrated for his military skill, saying that his reputation was
due not to his own merits, but to his good fortune in having been born in
the most illustrious country in Greece, received from the good-natured
Athenian, who saw that his native country did contribute to his renown, the
following reply: "Neither would I, had I been a Seriphian, have been so
distinguished as I am, nor would you have been a Themistocles, even if you
had had the good fortune to be an Athenian!" And now, our Jesus, who is
reproached with being born in a village, and that not a Greek one, nor
belonging to any nation widely esteemed, and being despised as the son of a
poor labouring woman, and as having on account of his poverty left his
native country and hired himself out in Egypt, and being, to use the
instance already quoted, not only a Seriphian, as it were, a native of a
very small and undistinguished island, but even, so to speak, the meanest
of the Seriphians, has yet been able to shake[1] the whole inhabited world
not only to a degree far above what Themistocles the Athenian ever did, but
beyond what even Pythagoras, or Plato, or any other wise man in any part of
the world whatever, or any prince or general, ever succeeded in doing?

CHAP. XXX.

   Now, would not any one who investigated with ordinary care the nature
of these facts, be struck with amazement at this man's victory?--with his
complete success in surmounting by his reputation all causes that tended to
bring him into disrepute, and with his superiority over all other
illustrious individuals in the world? And yet it is a rate thing for
distinguished men to succeed in acquiring a reputation for several things
at once. For one man is admired on account of his wisdom, another for his
military skill, and some of the Barbarians for their marvellous powers of
incantation, and some for one quality, and others for another; but not many
have been admired and acquired a reputation for many things at the same
time; whereas this man, in addition to his other merits, is an object of
admiration both for his wisdom, and for his miracles, and for his powers of
government. For he persuaded some to withdraw themselves from their laws,
and to secede to him, not as a tyrant would do, nor as a robber, who
arms[3] his followers against men; nor as a rich man, who bestows help upon
those who come to him; nor as one of those who confessedly are deserving of
censure; but as a teacher of the doctrine regarding the God of all things,
and of the worship which belongs to Him, and of all moral precepts which
are able to secure the favour of the Supreme God to him who orders his life
in conformity therewith. Now, to Themistocles, or to any other man of
distinction, nothing happened to prove a hindrance to their reputation;
whereas to this man, besides what we have already enumerated, and which are
enough to cover with dishonour the soul of a man even of the most noble
nature, there was that apparently infamous death of crucifixion, which was
enough to efface his previously acquired glory, and to lead those who, as
they who disavow his doctrine assert, were formerly deluded by him to
abandon their delusion, and to pass condemnation upon their deceiver.

CHAP. XXXI.

   And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the
disciples--if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after
His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity--
were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to
expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach,
according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him.
For I think that no one who candidly examines the facts would say that
these men devoted themselves to a life of danger for the sake of the
doctrine of Jesus, without profound belief which He had wrought in their
minds of its truth, not only teaching them to conform to His precepts, but
others also, and to conform, moreover, when manifest destruction to life
impended over him who ventured to introduce these new opinions into all
places and before all audiences, and who could retain as his friend no
human being who adhered to the former opinions and usages. For did not the
disciples of Jesus see, when they ventured to prove not only to the Jews
from their prophetic Scriptures that this is He who was spoken of by the
prophets, but also to the other heathen nations, that He who was crucified
yesterday or the day before underwent this death voluntarily on behalf of
the human race,--that this was analogous to the case of those who have died
for their country in order to remove pestilence, or barrenness, or
tempests? For it is probable that there is in the nature of things, for
certain mysterious tea-sons which are difficult to be understood by the
multitude, such a virtue that one just man, dying a voluntary death for the
common good, might be the means of removing wicked spirits, which are the
cause of plagues, or barrenness, or tempests, or similar calamities. Let
those, therefore, who would disbelieve the statement that Jesus died on the
cross on behalf of men, say whether they also refuse to accept the many
accounts current both among Greeks and Barbarians, of persons who have laid
down their lives for the public advantage, in order to remove those evils
which had fallen upon cities and countries? Or will they say that such
events actually happened, but that no credit is to be attached to that
account which makes this so-called man to have died to ensure the
destruction of a mighty evil spirit, the ruler of evil spirits, who had
held in subjection the souls of all men upon earth? And the disciples of
Jesus, seeing this and much more (which, it is probable, they learned from
Jesus in private), and being filled, moreover, with a divine power (since
it was no mere poetical virgin that endowed them with strength and courage,
but the true wisdom and understanding of God), exerted all their efforts
"to become distinguished among all men," not only among the Argives, but
among all the Greeks and Barbarians alike, and "so bear away for themselves
a glorious renown."[1]

CHAP. XXXII.

   But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the
mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out
of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been
guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named
Panthera;" and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these
fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by
the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous
conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in
a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and
not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no
ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who
would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some
falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their)
preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived
Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and
detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared
to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all
the Greeks and Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation, might
depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to
the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but one
the vilest and most disgraceful of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks,
and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of
Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into
the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to
teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the
world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather
introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more
in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons
(I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and
Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and
introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable,
therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its
residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not
say "all"), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but
invested with all excellent qualities.

CHAP. XXXIII.

   Now if a particular soul, for certain mysterious reasons, is not
deserving of being placed in the body of a wholly irrational being, nor yet
in that of one purely rational, but is clothed with a monstrous body, so
that reason cannot discharge its functions in one so fashioned, which has
the head disproportioned to the other parts, and altogether too short; and
another receives such a body that the soul is a little more rational than
the other; and another still more so, the nature of the body counteracting
to a greater or less degree the reception of the reasoning principle; why
should there not be also some soul which receives an altogether miraculous
body, possessing some qualities common to those of other men, so that it
may be able to pass through life with them, but possessing also some
quality of superiority, so that the soul may be able to remain untainted by
sin? And if there be any truth in the doctrine of the physiognomists,
whether Zopyrus, or Loxus, or Polemon, or any other who wrote on such a
subject, and who profess to know in some wonderful way that all bodies are
adapted to the habits of the souls, must there have been for that soul
which was to dwell with miraculous power among men, and work mighty deeds,
a body produced, as Celsus thinks, by an act of adultery between Panthera
and the Virgin?! Why, from such unhallowed intercourse there must rather
have been brought forth some fool to do injury to mankind,--a teacher of
licentiousness and wickedness, and other evils; and not of temperance, and
righteousness, and the other virtues!

CHAP. XXXIV.

   But it was, as the prophets also predicted, from a virgin that there
was to be born, according to the promised sign, one who was to give His
name to the fact, showing that at His birth God was to be with man. Now it
seems to me appropriate to the character of a Jew to have quoted the
prophecy of Isaiah, which says that Immanuel was to be born of a virgin.
This, however, Celsus, who professes to know everything, has not done,
either from ignorance or from an unwillingness (if he had read it and
voluntarily passed it by in silence) to furnish an argument which might
defeat his purpose. And the prediction runs thus: "And the Lord spake again
unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the RD thy God; ask it either in the
depth or in the height above  But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I
tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small
thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the
Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted,
God with us."[1] And that it was from intentional malice that Celsus did
not quote this prophecy, is clear to me from this, that although he makes
numerous quotations from the Gospel according to Matthew, as of the star
that appeared at the birth of Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he
has made no mention at all of this. Now, if a Jew should split words, and
say that the words are not, "Lo, a virgin," but, "Lo, a young woman,"[3] we
reply that the word "Olmah"--which the Septuagint have rendered by "a
virgin," and others by "a young woman"--occurs, as they say, in
Deuteronomy, as applied to a "virgin," in the following connection: "If a
damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in
the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate
of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the
damsel,[3] because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because
he humbled his neighbour's wife."[4] And again: "But if a man find a
betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then
the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel[5] ye shall
do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of death."

CHAP. XXXV.

   But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew word, to endeavour to
persuade those who are unable to determine whether they ought to believe it
or not, that the prophet spoke of this man being born of a virgin, because
at his birth these words, "God with us," were uttered, let us make good our
point from the words themselves. The Lord is related to have spoken to Ahaz
thus: "Ask a sign for thyself from the LORD thy God, either in the depth or
height above; "[6] and afterwards the sign is given, Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son."[7] What kind of sign, then, would that have
been--a young woman who was not a virgin giving birth to a child? And which
of the two is the more appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., "God
with us"),--whether a woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has
conceived after the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy
virgin? Surely it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at
whose birth it is said, "God with us." And should he be so captious l as to
say that it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed, "Ask for thyself a
sign from the LORD thy God," we shall ask in return, who in the times of
Ahaz bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of, "Immanuel,"
i.e., "God with us?" And if no one can be found. then manifestly what was
said to Ahaz was said to the house of David, because it is written that the
Saviour was born of the house of David according to the flesh; and this
sign is said to be "in the depth or in the height," since "He that
descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He
might fill all things."[8] And these arguments I employ as against a Jew
who believes in prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think
with him, with what meaning the prophet utters either these statements
about the future, or the others which are contained in the prophecies? Is
it with any foresight of the future or not? If with a foresight of the
future, then the prophets were divinely inspired; if with no foresight of
the future, let him explain the meaning of one who speaks thus boldly
regarding the future, and who is an object of admiration among the Jews
because of his prophetic powers.

CHAP. XXXVI.

   And now, since we have touched upon the subject of the prophets, what
we are about to advance will be useful not only to the Jews, who believe
that they spake by divine inspiration, but also to the more candid among
the Greeks. To these we say that we must necessarily admit that the Jews
had prophets, if they were to be kept together under that system of law
which had been given them, and were to believe in the Creator of the world,
as they had learned, and to be without pretexts, so far as the law was
concerned, for apostatizing to the polytheism of the heathen  And we
establish this necessity in the following manner. "For the nations," as it
is written in the law of the Jews itself, "shall hearken unto observers of
times, and diviners; "[1] but to that people it is said: "But as for thee,
the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do."[1] And to this is
subjoined the promise: "A prophet shall the LORD thy God raise up unto thee
from among thy brethren."[2] Since, therefore, the heathen employ modes of
divination either by oracles or by omens, or by birds, or by
ventriloquists, or by those who profess the art of sacrifice, or by
Chaldean genealogists--all which practices were forbidden to the Jews--this
people, if they had no means of attaining a knowledge of futurity, being
led by the passion common to humanity of ascertaining the future would have
despised their own prophets, as not having in them any particle of
divinity; and would not have accepted any prophet after Moses, nor
committed their words to writing, but would have spontaneously betaken
themselves to the divining usages of the heathen, or attempted to establish
some such practices amongst themselves. There is therefore no absurdity in
their prophets having uttered predictions even about events of no
importance, to soothe those who desire such things, as when Samuel
prophesies regarding three she-asses which were lost,[3] or when mention is
made in the third book of Kings respecting the sickness of a king's son.[4]
And why should not those who desired to obtain auguries from idols be
severely rebuked by the administrators of the law among the Jews?--as
Elijah is found rebuking Ahaziah, and saying, "Is it because there is not a
God in Israel that ye go to inquire of Baalzebub, god of Ekron?"

CHAP. XXXVII.

   I think, then, that it has been pretty well established not only that
our Saviour was to be born of a virgin, but also that there were prophets
among the Jews who uttered not merely general predictions about the
future,--as, e.g., regarding Christ and the kingdoms of the world, and the
events that were to happen to Israel, and those nations which were to
believe on the Saviour, and many other things concerning Him,--but also
prophecies respecting particular events; as, for instance, how the asses of
Kish, which were lost, were to be discovered, and regarding the sickness
which had fallen upon the son of the king of Israel, and any other recorded
circumstance of a similar kind. But as a further answer to the Greeks, who
do not believe in the birth of Jesus from a virgin, we have to say that the
Creator has shown, by the generation of several kinds of animals, that what
He has done in the instance of one animal, He could do, if it pleased Him,
in that of others, and also of man himself. For it is ascertained that
there is a certain female animal which has no intercourse with the male (as
writers on animals say is the case with vultures), and that this animal,
without sexual intercourse, preserves the succession of race. What
incredibility, therefore, is there in supposing that, if God wished to send
a divine teacher to the human race, He caused Him to be born in some manner
different from the common![6] Nay, according to the Greeks themselves, all
men were not born of a man and woman. For if the world has been created, as
many even of the Greeks are pleased to admit, then the first men must have
been produced not from sexual intercourse, but from the earth, in which
spermatic elements existed; which, however, I consider more incredible than
that Jesus was born like other men, so far as regards the half of his
birth. And there is no absurdity in employing Grecian histories to answer
Greeks, with the view of showing that we are not the only persons who have
recourse to miraculous narratives of this kind. For some have thought fit,
not in regard to ancient and heroic narratives, but in regard to events of
very recent occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato was the
son of Amphictione, Ariston being prevented from having marital intercourse
with his wife until she had given birth to him with whom she was pregnant
by Apollo. And yet these are veritable fables, which have led to the
invention of such stories concerning a man whom they regarded as possessing
greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and as having received the
beginning of his corporeal substance from better and diviner elements than
others, because they thought that this was appropriate to persons who were
too great to be human beings. And since Celsus has introduced the Jew
disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of
His birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and
Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes
a buffoon, land not one who is writing in a serious tone.

CHAP. XXXVIII.

   But, moreover, taking the history, contained in the Gospel according to
Matthew, of our Lord's descent into Egypt, he refuses to believe the
miraculous circumstances attending it, viz., either that the angel gave the
divine intimation, or that our Lord's quitting Judea and residing in Egypt
was an event of any significance; but he invents something altogether
different, admitting somehow the miraculous works done by Jesus, by means
of which He induced the multitude to follow Him as the Christ. And yet he
desires to throw discredit on them, as being done by help of magic and not
by divine power; for he asserts "that he (Jesus), having been brought up as
an illegitimate child, and having served for hire in Egypt, and then coming
to the knowledge of certain miraculous powers, returned from thence to his
own country, and by means of those powers proclaimed himself a god." Now I
do not understand how a magician should exert himself to teach a doctrine
which persuades us always to act as if God were to judge every man for his
deeds; and should have trained his disciples, whom he was to employ as the
ministers of his doctrine, in the same belief. For did the latter make an
impression upon their hearers, after they had been so taught to work
miracles; or was it without the aid of these? The assertion, therefore,
that they did no miracles at all, but that, after yielding their belief to
arguments which were not at all convincing, like the wisdom of Grecian
dialectics,[1] they gave themselves up to the task of teaching the new
doctrine to those persons among whom they happened to take up their abode,
is altogether absurd. For in what did they place their confidence when they
taught the doctrine and disseminated the new opinions? But if they indeed
wrought miracles, then how can it be believed that magicians exposed
themselves to such hazards to introduce a doctrine which forbade the
practice of magic?

CHAP. XXXIX.

   I do not think it necessary to grapple with an argument advanced not in
a serious but in a scoffing spirit, such as the following: "If the mother
of Jesus was beautiful, then the god whose nature is not to love a
corruptible body, had intercourse with her because she was beautiful;" or,
"It was improbable that the god would entertain a passion for her, because
she was neither rich nor of royal rank, seeing no one, even of her
neighbours, knew her." And it is in the same scoffing spirit that he adds:
"When hated by her husband, and turned out of doors, she was not saved by
divine power, nor was her story believed. Such things, he says, have no
connection with the kingdom of heaven." In what respect does such language
differ from that of those who pour abuse on others on the public streets,
and whose words are unworthy of any serious attention?

CHAP. XL.

   After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and
perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon
our Saviour at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the
statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. Having completely
disposed, as he imagined, of the story of our Lord's birth from a virgin,
he does not proceed to deal in an orderly manner with the accounts that
follow it; since passion and hatred observe no order, but angry and
vindictive men slander those whom they hate, as the feeling comes upon
them, being prevented by their passion from arranging their accusations on
a careful and orderly plan. For if he had observed a proper arrangement, he
would have taken up the Gospel, and, with the view of assailing it, would.
have objected to the first narrative, then passed on to the second, and so
on to the others. But now, after the birth from a virgin, this Celsus, who
professes to be acquainted with all our history, attacks the account of the
appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism. He
then, after that, tries to throw discredit upon the prediction that our
Lord was to come into the world. In the next place, he runs away to what
immediately follows the narrative of the birth of Jesus--the account of the
star, and of the wise men who came from the east to worship the child. And
you yourself may find, if you take the trouble, many confused statements
made by Celsus throughout his whole book; so that even in this account he
may, by those who know how to observe and require an orderly method of
arrangement, be convicted of great rashness and boasting, in having
inscribed upon his work the title of A True Discourse,--a thing which is
never done by a learned philosopher. For Plato says, that it is not an
indication of an intelligent man to make strong assertions respecting those
matters which are somewhat uncertain; and the celebrated Chrysippus even,
who frequently states the reasons by which he is decided, refers us to
those whom we shall find to be abler speakers than himself. This man,
however, who is wiser than those already named, and than all the other
Greeks, agreeably to his assertion of being acquainted with everything,
inscribed upon his book the words, A True Discourse!

CHAP. XLI.

   But, that we may not have the appearance of intentionally passing by
his charges through inability to refute them, we have resolved to answer
each one of them separately according to our ability, attending not to the
connection and sequence of the nature of the things themselves, but to the
arrangement of the subjects as they occur in this book. Let us therefore
notice what he has to say by way of impugning the bodily appearance of the
Holy Spirit to our Saviour in the form of a dove. And it is a Jew who
addresses the following language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord
Jesus: "When you were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that
what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you." And then
this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible
witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven declaring
you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own
assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been
punished along with you?"

CHAP. XLII.

   Before we begin our reply, we have to remark that the endeavour to
show, with regard to almost any history, however true, that it actually
occurred, and to produce an intelligent conception regarding it, is one of
the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some
instances an impossibility. For suppose that some one were to assert that
there never had been any Trojan war, chiefly on account of the impossible
narrative interwoven therewith, about a certain Achilles being the son of a
sea-goddess Thetis and of a man Peleus, or Sarpedon being the son of Zeus,
or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus the sons of Ares, or AEneas that of Aphrodite,
how should we prove that such was the case, especially under the weight of
the fiction attached, I know not how, to the universally prevalent opinion
that there was really a war in Ilium between Greeks and Trojans? And
suppose, also, that some one disbelieved the story of OEdipus and Jocasta,
and of their two sons Eteocles and Polynices, because the sphinx, a kind of
half-virgin, was introduced into the narrative, how should we demonstrate
the reality of such a thing? And in like manner also with the history of
the Epigoni, although there is no such marvellous event interwoven with it,
or with the return of the Heracleidae, or countless other historical
events. But he who deals candidly with histories, and would wish to keep
himself also from being imposed upon by them, will exercise his judgment as
to what statements he will give his assent to, and what he will accept
figuratively, seeking to discover the meaning of the authors of such
inventions, and from what statements he will withhold his belief, as having
been written for the gratification of certain individuals. And we have said
this by way of anticipation respecting the whole history related in the
Gospels concerning Jesus, not as inviting men of acuteness to a simple and
unreasoning faith, but wishing to show that there is need of candour in
those who are to read, and of much investigation, and, so to speak, of
insight into the meaning of the writers, that the object with which each
event has been recorded may be discovered.

CHAP. XLIII.

   We shall therefore say, in the first place, that if he who disbelieves
the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove had been described
as an Epicurean, or a follower of Democritus, or a Peripatetic, the
statement would have been in keeping with the character of such an
objector. But now even this Celsus, wisest of all men, did not perceive
that it is to a Jew, who believes more incredible things contained in the
writings of the prophets than the narrative of the appearance of the dove,
that he attributes such an objection! For one might say to the Jew, when
expressing his disbelief of the appearance, and thinking to assail it as a
fiction, "How are you able to prove, sir, that the Lord spake to Adam, or
to Eve, or to Cain, or to Noah, or to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob,
those words which He is recorded to have spoken to these men?" And, to
compare history with history, I would say to the Jew, "Even your own
Ezekiel writes, saying,' The heavens were opened, and I saw a vision of
God." After relating which, he adds, ' This was the appearance of the
likeness of the glory of the LORD; and He said to me,'"[2] etc. Now, if
what is related of Jesus be false, since we cannot, as you suppose, clearly
prove it to be true, it being seen or heard by Himself alone, and, as you
appear to have observed, also by one of those who were punished, why should
we not rather say that Ezekiel also was dealing in the marvellous when he
said, "The heavens were opened," etc.? Nay, even Isaiah asserts, "I saw the
Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and the seraphim
stood round about it: the one had six wings, and the other had six
wings."[3] How can we tell whether he really saw them or not? Now, O Jew,
you have believed these visions to be true, and to have been not only shown
to the prophet by a diviner Spirit, but also to have been both spoken and
recorded by the same. And who is the more worthy of belief, when declaring
that the heavens were opened before him, and that he heard a voice, or
beheld the Lord of Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up,--
whether Isaiah and Ezekiel or Jesus? Of the former, indeed, no work has
been found equal to those of the latter; whereas the good deeds of Jesus
have not been confined solely to the period of His tabernacling in the
flesh, but up to the present time His power still produces conversion and
amelioration of life in those who believe in God through Him. And a
manifest proof that these things are done by His power, is the fact that,
although, as He Himself said, and as is admitted, there are not labourers
enough to gather in the harvest of souls, there really is nevertheless such
a great harvest of those who are gathered together and conveyed into the
everywhere existing threshing-floors and Churches of God.

CHAP. XLIV.

   And with these arguments I answer the Jew, not disbelieving, I who am a
Christian, Ezekiel and Isaiah, but being very desirous to show, on the
footing of our common belief, that this man is far more worthy of credit
than they are when He says that He beheld such a sight, and, as is
probable, related to His disciples the vision which He saw, and told them
of the voice which He heard. But another party might object, that not all
those who have narrated the appearance of the dove and the voice from
heaven heard the accounts of these things from Jesus, but that that Spirit
which taught Moses the history of events before his own time, beginning
with the creation, and descending down to Abraham his father, taught also
the writers of the Gospel the miraculous occurrence which took place at the
time of Jesus' baptism. And he who is adorned with the spiritual gift,[1]
called the "word of wisdom," will explain also the reason of the heavens
opening, and the dove appearing, and why the Holy Spirit appeared to Jesus
in the form of no other living thing than that of a dove. But our present
subject does not require us to explain this, our purpose being to show that
Celsus displayed no sound judgment in representing a Jew as disbelieving,
on such grounds, a fact which has greater probability in its favour than
many events in which he firmly reposes confidence.

CHAP. XLV.

   And I remember on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews
who were reputed learned men, having employed the following argument in the
presence of many judges: "Tell me, sirs," I said, "since there are two
individuals who have visited the human race, regarding whom are related
marvellous works surpassing human power--Moses, viz., your own legislator,
who wrote about himself, and Jesus our teacher, who has left no writings
regarding Himself, but to whom testimony is borne by the disciples in the
Gospels--what are the grounds for deciding that Moses is to be believed as
speaking the truth, although the Egyptians slander him as a sorcerer, and
as appearing to have wrought his mighty works by jugglery, while Jesus is
not to be believed because you are His accusers? And yet there are nations
which bear testimony in favour of both: the Jews to Moses; and the
Christians, who do not deny the prophetic mission of Moses, but proving
from that very source the truth of the statement regarding Jesus, accept as
true the miraculous circumstances related of Him by His disciples. Now, if
ye ask us for the reasons of our faith in Jesus, give yours first for
believing in Moses, who lived before Him, and then we shall give you ours
for accepting the latter. But if you draw back, and shirk a demonstration,
then we, following your own example, decline for the present to offer any
demonstration likewise; Nevertheless, admit that ye have no proof to offer
for Moses, and then listen to our defence of Jesus derived from the law and
the prophets. And now observe what is almost incredible! It is shown from
the declarations concerning Jesus, contained in the law and the prophets,
that both Moses and the prophets were truly prophets of God."

CHAP. XLVI.

   For the law and the prophets are full of marvels similar to those
recorded of Jesus at His baptism, viz., regarding the dove and the voice
from heaven. And I think the wonders wrought by Jesus are a proof of the
Holy Spirit's having then appeared in the form of a dove, although Celsus,
from a desire to cast discredit upon them, alleges that He performed only
what He had learned among the Egyptians. And I shall refer not only to His
miracles, but, as is proper, to those also of the apostles of Jesus. For
they could not without the help of miracles and wonders have prevailed on
those who heard their new doctrines and new teachings to abandon their
national usages, and to accept their instructions at the danger to
themselves even of death. And there are still preserved among Christians
traces of that Holy Spirit which appeared in the form of a dove. They expel
evil spirits, and perform many cures, and foresee certain events, according
to the will of the Logos. And although Celsus, or the Jew whom he has
introduced, may treat with mockery what I am going to say, I shall say it
nevertheless,--that many have been converted to Christianity as if against
their will, some sort of spirit having suddenly transformed their minds
from a hatred of the doctrine to a readiness to die in its defence, and
having appeared to them either in a waking vision or a dream of the night.
Many such instances have we known, which, if we were to commit to writing,
although they were seen and witnessed by ourselves, we should afford great
occasion for ridicule to unbelievers, who would imagine that we, like those
whom they suppose to have invented such things, had ourselves also done the
same. But God is witness of our conscientious desire, not by false
statements, but by testimonies of different kinds, to establish the
divinity of the doctrine of Jesus. And as it is a Jew who is perplexed
about the account of the Holy Spirit having descended upon Jesus in the
form of a dove, we would say to him, "Sir, who is it that says in Isaiah,
'And now the Lord hath sent me and His Spirit?[1] In which sentence, as the
meaning is doubtful--viz., whether the Father and the Holy Spirit sent
Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit--the latter is
correct. For, because the Saviour was sent, afterwards the Holy Spirit was
sent also, that the prediction of the prophet might be fulfilled; and as it
was necessary that the fulfilment of the prophecy should be known to
posterity, the disciples of Jesus for that reason committed the result to
writing.

CHAP. XLVII.

   I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting
somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John
the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who
lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of
his Antiquities[2] of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having
been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the
rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in
seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the
temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was
the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death
Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his
will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as
a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus
(called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man
most distinguished for his justice.[3] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus,
says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on
account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up
together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.[4] If, then, he says that
it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to
overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to
say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose
divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been
convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the
Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

CHAP. XLVIII.

   Although the Jew, then, may offer no defence for himself in the
instances of Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the opening of the heavens
to Jesus; and the voice that was heard by Him, to the similar cases which
we find recorded in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or any other of the prophets, we
nevertheless, so far as we can, shall support our position, maintaining
that, as it is a matter of belief that in a dream impressions have been
brought before the minds of many, some relating to divine things, and
others to future events of this life, and this either with clearness or in
an enigmatic manner,--a fact which is manifest to all who accept the
doctrine of providence; so how is it absurd to say that the mind which
could receive impressions in a dream should be impressed also in a waking
vision, for the benefit either of him on whom the impressions are made, or
of those who are to hear the account of them from him? And as in a dream we
fancy that we hear, and that the organs of hearing are actually impressed,
and that we see with our eyes--although neither the bodily organs of sight
nor hearing are affected, but it is the mind alone which has these
sensations--so there is no absurdity in believing that similar things
occurred to the prophets, when it is recorded that they witnessed
occurrences of a rather wonderful kind, as when they either heard the words
of the Lord or beheld the heavens opened. For I do not suppose that the
visible heaven was actually opened, and its physical structure divided, in
order that Ezekiel might be able to record such an occurrence. Should not,
therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour by every intelligent hearer
of the Gospels?--although such an occurrence may be a stumbling-block to
the simple, who in their simplicity would set the whole world in movement,
and split in sunder the compact and mighty body of the whole heavens. But
he who examines such matters more profoundly will say, that there being, as
the Scripture calls it, a kind of general divine perception which the
blessed man alone knows how to discover, according to the saying of
Solomon, "Thou shall find the knowledge of God;"[5] and as there are
various forms of this perceptive power, such as a faculty of vision which
can naturally see things that are better than bodies, among which are
ranked the cherubim and seraphim; and a faculty of hearing which can
perceive voices which have not their being in the air; and a sense of taste
which can make use of living bread that has come down from heaven, and that
giveth life unto the world; and so also a sense of smelling, which scents
such things as leads Paul to say that he is a sweet savour of Christ unto
God;[1] and a sense of touch, by which John says that he "handled with his
hands of the Word of life;"[2]--the blessed prophets having discovered this
divine perception, and seeing and hearing in this divine manner, and
tasting likewise, and smelling, so to speak, with no sensible organs of
perception, and laying hold on the Logos by faith, so that a healing
effluence from it comes upon them, saw in this manner what they record as
having seen, and heard what they say they heard, and were affected in a
similar manner to what they describe when eating the roll of a book that
was given them.[3] And so also Isaac smelled the savour of his son's divine
garments,[4] and added to the spiritual blessing these words: "See, the
savour of my son is as the savour of a full field which the LORD
blessed."[5] And similarly to this, and more as a matter to be understood
by the mind than to be perceived by the senses, Jesus touched the leper,[6]
to cleanse him, as I think, in a twofold sense,--freeing him not only, as
the multitude heard, from the visible leprosy by visible contact, but also
from that other leprosy, by His truly divine touch. It is in this way,
accordingly, that John testifies when he says, "I beheld the Spirit
descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him
not; but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon
whom you will see the Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same is He
that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost And I saw, and bear witness, that this
is the Son of God."[7] Now it was to Jesus that the heavens were opened;
and on that occasion no one except John is recorded to have seen them
opened. But with respect to this opening of the heavens, the Saviour,
foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and that they would see
it, says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heavens opened,
and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."[8] And
so Paul was carried away into the third heaven, having previously seen it
opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. It does not, however, belong to
our present object to explain why Paul says, "Whether in the body, I know
not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth."[9] But I shall
add to my argument even those very points which Celsus imagines, viz., that
Jesus Himself related the account of the opening of the heavens, and the
descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove,
although the Scripture does not assert that He said that He saw it. For
this great man did not perceive that it was not in keeping with Him who
commanded His disciples on the occasion of the vision on the mount, "Tell
what ye have seen to no man, until the Son of man he risen from the
dead,"[10] to have related to His disciples what was seen and heard by John
at the Jordan. For it may be observed as a trait of the character of Jesus,
that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk about Himself; and on
that account said, "If I speak of Myself, My witness is not true."[11] And
since He avoided unnecessary talk about Himself, and preferred to show by
acts rather than words that He was the Christ, the Jews for that reason
said to Him, "If Thou art the Christ, tell us plainly."[12] And as it is a
Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus regarding the
appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, "This is your own
testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your
punishment, whom you adduce," it is necessary for us to show him that such
a statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews
do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of
Christ. And by this instance, this man who boasts of universal knowledge is
convicted of not knowing what words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in
a disputation with Jesus.

CHAP. XLIX.

   After this he wilfully sets aside, I know not why, the strongest
evidence in confirmation of the claims of Jesus, viz., that His coming was
predicted by the Jewish prophets--Moses, and those who succeeded as well as
preceded that legislator--from inability, as I think, to meet the argument
that neither the Jews nor any other heretical sect refuse to believe that
Christ was the subject of prophecy. But perhaps he was unacquainted with
the prophecies relating to Christ. For no one who was acquainted with the
statements of the Christians, that many prophets foretold the advent of the
Saviour, would have ascribed to a Jew sentiments which it would have better
befitted a Samaritan or a Sadducee to utter; nor would the Jew in the
dialogue have expressed himself in language like the following: "But my
prophet once declared in Jerusalem, that the Son of God will come as the
Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked." Now it is not one
of the prophets merely who predicted the advent of Christ. But although the
Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say
that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet
certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of
Moses, was the prophecy uttered. It were indeed to be desired, that all the
accusers of Christianity were equally ignorant with Celsus, not only of the
facts, but of the bare letter of Scripture, and would so direct their
assaults against it, that their arguments might not have the least
available influence in shaking, I do not say the faith, but the little
faith of unstable and temporary believers. A Jew, however, would not admit
that any prophet used the expression, "The ' Son of God' will come;" for
the term which they employ is, "The 'Christ of God' will come." And many a
time indeed do they directly interrogate us about the "Son of God," saying
that no such being exists, or was made the subject of prophecy. We do not
of course assert that the "Son of God" is not the subject of prophecy; but
we assert that he most inappropriately attributes to the Jewish disputant,
who would not allow that He was, such language as, "My prophet once
declared in Jerusalem that the ' Son of God' will come."

CHAP. L.

   In the next place, as if the only event predicted were this, that He
was to be "the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked," and
as if neither the place of His birth, nor the sufferings which He was to
endure at the hands of the Jews, nor His resurrection, nor the wonderful
works which He was to perform, had been made the subject of prophecy, he
continues "Why should it be you alone, rather than innumerable others, who
existed after the prophecies were published, to whom these predictions are
applicable?" And desiring, I know not how, to suggest to others the
possibility of the notion that they themselves were the persons referred to
by the prophets, he says that "some, carried away by enthusiasm, and others
having gathered a multitude of followers, give out that the Son of God is
come down from heaven." Now we have not ascertained that such occurrences
are admitted to have taken place among the Jews. we have to remark then, in
the first place, that many of the prophets have uttered predictions! in all
kinds of ways[1] regarding Christ; some by means of dark sayings, others in
allegories or in some other manner, and some also in express words. And as
in what follows he says, in the character of the Jew addressing the
converts from his own nation, and repeating emphatically and malevolently,
that "the prophecies referred to the events of his life may also suit other
events as well," we shall state a few of them out of a greater number; and
with respect to these, any one who chooses may say what he thinks fitted to
ensure a refutation of them, and which may turn away intelligent believers
from the faith.

CHAP. LI.

   Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of the Saviour's birth--
that the Ruler was to come forth from Bethlehem--in the following manner:
"And thou Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the least among the
thousands of Judah: for out of thee shall He come forth unto Me who is to
be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been of old, from
everlasting."[2] Now this prophecy could not suit any one of those who, as
Celsus' Jew says, were fanatics and mob-leaders, and who gave out that they
had come from heaven, unless it were clearly shown that He had been born in
Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come forth from Bethlehem to be
the leader of the people. With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem,
if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history
recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional
evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the
narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem
the cave[3] where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was
wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in
surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that
in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the
Christians.[4] Moreover, I am of opinion that, before the advent of Christ,
the chief priests and scribes of the people, on account of the distinctness
and clearness of this prophecy, taught that in Bethlehem the Christ was to
be born. And this opinion had prevailed also extensively among the Jews;
for which reason it is related that Herod, on inquiring at the chief
priests and scribes of the people, heard from them that the Christ was to
be born in Bethlehem of Judea, "whence David was." It is stated also in the
Gospel according to John, that the Jews declared that the Christ was to be
born in Bethlehem, "whence David was."[1] But after our Lord's coming,
those who busied themselves with overthrowing the belief that the place of
His birth had been the subject of prophecy from the beginning, withheld
such teaching from the people; acting in a similar manner to those
individuals who won over those soldiers of the guard stationed around the
tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and who instructed these eye-
witnesses to report as follows: "Say that His disciples, while we slept,
came and stole Him away. And if this come to the governor's ears, we shall
persuade him, and secure you."[2]

CHAP. LII.

   Strife and prejudice are powerful instruments in leading men to
disregard even those things which are abundantly clear; so that they who
have somehow become familiar with certain opinions, which have deeply
imbued their minds, and stamped them with a certain character, will not
give them up. For a man will abandon his habits in respect to other things,
although it may be difficult for him to tear himself from them, more easily
than he will surrender his opinions. Nay, even the former are not easily
put aside by those who have become accustomed to them; and so neither
houses, nor cities, nor villages, nor intimate acquaintances, are willingly
forsaken when we are prejudiced in their favour. This, therefore, was a
reason why many of the Jews at that time disregarded the clear testimony of
the prophecies, and miracles which Jesus wrought, and of the sufferings
which He is related to have endured. And that human nature is thus
affected, will be manifest to those who observe that those who have once
been prejudiced in favour of the most contemptible and paltry traditions of
their ancestors and fellow-citizens, with difficulty lay them aside. For
example, no one could easily persuade an Egyptian to despise what he had
learned from his fathers, so as no longer to consider this or that
irrational animal as a god, or not to guard against eating, even under the
penalty of death, of the flesh of such an animal. Now, if in carrying our
examination of this subject to a considerable length, we have enumerated
the points respecting Bethlehem, and the prophecy regarding it, we consider
that we were obliged to do this, by way of defence against those who would
assert that if the prophecies current among the Jews l regarding Jesus were
so clear as we represent them, why did they not at His coming give in their
adhesion to His doctrine, and betake them selves to the better life pointed
out by Him? Let no one, however, bring such a reproach against believers,
since he may see that reasons of no light weight are assigned by those who
have learned to state them, for their faith in Jesus.

CHAP. LIII.

   And if we should ask for a second prophecy, which may appear to us to
have a clear reference to Jesus, we would quote that which was written by
Moses very many years before the advent of Christ, when he makes Jacob, on
his departure from this life, to have uttered predictions regarding each of
his sons, and to have said of Judah along with the others: "The ruler will
not fail from Judah, and the governor from his loins, until that which is
reserved for him come."[3] Now, any one meeting with this prophecy, which
is in reality much older than Moses, so that one who was not a believer
might suspect that it was not written by him, would be surprised that Moses
should be able to predict that the princes of the Jews, seeing there are
among them twelve tribes, should be born of the tribe of Judah, and should
be the rulers of the people; for which reason also the whole nation are
called Jews, deriving their name from the ruling tribe. And, in the second
place, one who candidly considers the prophecy, would be surprised how,
after declaring that the rulers and governors of the people were to proceed
from the tribe of Judah, he should determine also the limit of their rule,
saying that "the ruler should not fail from Judah, nor the governor from
his loins, until there should come that which was reserved for him, and
that He is the expectation of the Gentiles."[4] For He came for whom these
things were reserved, viz., the Christ of God, the ruler of the promises of
God. And manifestly He is the only one among those who preceded, and, I
might make bold to say, among those also who followed Him, who was the
expectation of the Gentiles; for converts from among all the Gentile
nations have believed on God through Him, and that in conformity with the
prediction of Isaiah, that in His name the Gentiles had hoped: "In Thy name
shall the Gentiles hope."[5] And this man said also to those who are in
prison, as every man is a captive to the chains of his sins, "Come forth;"
and to the ignorant, "Come into the light:" these things also having been
thus foretold: "I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, to
establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritage; saying to
the prisoners, Go forth; and to them that are in darkness, Show
yourselves."[1] And we may see at the appearing of this man, by means of
those who everywhere throughout the world have reposed a simple faith in
Him, the fulfilment of this prediction: "They shall feed in the ways, and
their pastures shall be in all the beaten tracks."[2]

CHAP. LIV.

   And since Celsus, although professing to know all about the Gospel,
reproaches the Saviour because of His sufferings, saying that He received
no assistance from the Father, or was unable to aid Himself; we have to
state that His sufferings were the subject of prophecy, along with the
cause of them; because it was for the benefit of mankind that He should die
on their account,[3] and should suffer stripes because of His condemnation.
It was predicted, moreover, that some from among the Gentiles would come to
the knowledge of Him (among whom the prophets are not included); and it had
been declared that He would be seen in a form which is deemed dishonourable
among men. The words of prophecy run thus: "Lo, my Servant shall have
understanding, and shall be exalted and glorified, and raised exceedingly
high. In like manner, many shall be astonished at Thee; so Thy form shall
be in no reputation among men, and Thy glory among the sons of men. Lo,
many nations shall marvel because of Him; and kings shall close their
mouths: because they, to whom no message about Him was sent, shall see Him;
and they who have not heard of Him, shall have knowledge of Him."[4] "Lord,
who hath believed our report? and to whom was the arm of the LORD revealed?
We have reported, as a child before Him, as a root in a thirsty ground. He
has no form nor glory; and we beheld Him, and He had not any form nor
beauty: but His appearance was without honour, and deficient more than that
of all men. He was a man under suffering, and who knew how to bear
sickness: because His countenance was averted, He was treated with
disrespect, and was made of no account. This man bears our sins, and
suffers pain on our behalf; and we regarded Him as in trouble, and in
suffering, and as ill-treated. But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised
for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him; by His
stripes we were healed. We all, like sheep, wandered from the way. A man
wandered in his way, and the Lord delivered Him on account of our sins; and
He, because of His evil treatment, opens not His mouth. As a sheep was He
led to slaughter; and as a lamb before her shearer is dumb, so He opens not
His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. And who shall
describe His generation? because His life is taken away from the earth;
because of the iniquities of My people was He led unto death."[5]

CHAP. LV.

   Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with
certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to
which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to
the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of
dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on
account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And
in this way he explained the words, "Thy form shall be of no reputation
among men;" and then, "They to whom no message was sent respecting him
shall see;" and the expression, "A man under suffering." Many arguments
were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these
predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by
them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression
would be appropriate, "This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our
behalf;" and this, "But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our
iniquities;" and to whom the expression properly belonged, "By His stripes
were we healed." For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners,
and had been healed by the Saviour's sufferings (whether belonging to the
Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the
writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, appiled these words to a person. But we
seemed to press them hardest with the expression, "Because of the
iniquities of My people was He led away unto death." For if the people,
according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to
be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless
he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person
save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed,
when "He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and
had made a show of them openly on His cross?"[6] At another time we may
explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined.
But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I
think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of
Celsus.

CHAP. LVI.

   Now it escaped the notice of Celsus, and of the Jew whom he has
introduced, and of all who are not believers in Jesus, that the prophecies
speak of two advents of Christ: the former characterized by human suffering
and humility, in order that Christ, being with men, might make known the
way that leads to God, and might leave no man in this life a ground of
excuse, in saying that he knew not of the judgment to come; and the latter,
distinguished only by glory and divinity, having no element of human
infirmity intermingled with its divine greatness. To quote the prophecies
at length would be tedious; and I deem it sufficient for the present to
quote a part of the forty-fifth Psalm, which has this inscription, in
addition to others, "A Psalm for the Beloved," where God is evidently
addressed in these words: "Grace is poured into Thy lips: therefore God
will bless Thee for ever and ever. Gird Thy sword on Thy thigh, O mighty
One, with Thy beauty and Thy majesty. And stretch forth, and ride
prosperously, and reign, because of Thy truth, and meekness, and
righteousness; and Thy right hand shall lead Thee marvellously. Thine
arrows are pointed, O mighty One; the people will fall under Thee in the
heart of the enemies of the King."[1] But attend carefully to what follows,
where He is called God: "For Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a
sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved
righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath
anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows."[2] And observe
that the prophet, speaking familiarly to God, whose "throne is for ever and
ever," and "a sceptre of righteousness the sceptre of His kingdom," says
that this God has been anointed by a God who was His God, and anointed,
because more than His fellows He had loved righteousness and hated
iniquity. And I remember that I pressed the Jew, who was deemed a learned
man, very hard with this passage; and he, being perplexed about it, gave
such an answer as was in keeping with his Judaistic views, saying that the
words, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness
is the sceptre of Thy kingdom," are spoken of the God of all things; and
these, "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore Thy God
hath anointed Thee," etc., refer to the Messiah.[3]

CHAP. LVII.

   The Jew, moreover, in the treatise, addresses the Saviour thus: "If you
say that every man, born according to the decree of Divine Providence, is a
son of God, in what respect should you differ from another?" In reply to
whom we say, that every man who, as Paul expresses it, is no longer under
fear, as a schoolmaster, but who chooses good for its own sake, is "a son
of God;" but this man is distinguished far and wide above every man who is
called, on account of his virtues, a son of God, seeing He is, as it were,
a kind of source and beginning of all such. The words of Paul are as
follow: "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but
ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."[4]
But, according to the Jew of Celsus, "countless individuals will convict
Jesus of falsehood, alleging that those predictions which were spoken of
him were intended of them." We are not aware, indeed, whether Celsus knew
of any who, after coming into this world, and having desired to act as
Jesus did, declared themselves to be also the "sons of God," or the "power"
of God. But since it is in the spirit of truth that we examine each
passage, we shall mention that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews
before the birth of Christ, who gave himself out as some great one, after
whose death his deluded followers were completely dispersed. And after him,
in the days of the census, when Jesus appears to have been born, one Judas,
a Galilean, gathered around him many of the Jewish people, saying he was a
wise man, and a teacher of certain new doctrines. And when he also had paid
the penalty of his rebellion, his doctrine was overturned, having taken
hold of very few persons indeed, and these of the very humblest condition.
And after the times of Jesus, Dositheus the Samaritan also wished to
persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by Moses; and he
appears to have gained over some to his views. But it is not absurd, in
quoting the extremely wise observation of that Gamaliel named in the book
of Acts, to show how those persons above mentioned were strangers to the
promise, being neither "sons of God" nor "powers" of God, whereas Christ
Jesus was truly the Son of God. Now Gamaliel, in the passage referred to,
said: "If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought" (as
also did the designs of those men already mentioned after their death);
"but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow this doctrine, lest haply ye be
found even to fight against God."[3] There was also Simon the Samaritan
magician, who wished to draw away certain by his magical arts. And on that
occasion he was successful; but now-a-days it is impossible to find, I
suppose, thirty of his followers in the entire world, and probably I have
even overstated the number. There are exceedingly few in Palestine; while
in the rest of the world, through which he desired to spread the glory of
his name, you find it nowhere mentioned. And where it is found, it is found
quoted from the Acts of the Apostles; so that it is to Christians that he
owes this mention of himself, the unmistakeable result having proved that
Simon was in no respect divine.

CHAP. LVIII.

   After these matters this Jew of Celsus, instead of the Magi mentioned
in the Gospel, says that "Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been
induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an infant
as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch; and that the
latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about the same
time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among the others;
and that he was led to do this through fear that, if Jesus lived to a
sufficient age, he would obtain the throne." See now in this instance the
blunder of one who cannot distinguish between Magi and Chaldeans, nor
perceive that what they profess is different, and so has falsified the
Gospel narrative. I know not, moreover, why he has passed by in silence the
cause which led the Magi to come, and why he has not stated, according to
the scriptural account, that it was a star seen by them in the east. Let us
see now what answer we have to make to these statements. The star that was
seen in the east we consider to have been a new star, unlike any of the
other well-known planetary bodies, either those in the firmament above or
those among the lower orbs, but partaking of the nature of those celestial
bodies which appear at times, such as comets, or those meteors which
resemble beams of wood, or beards, or wine jars, or any of those other
names by which the Greeks are accustomed to describe their varying
appearances. And we establish our position in the following manner.

CHAP. LIX.

   It has been observed that, on the occurrence of great events, and of
mighty changes in terrestrial things, such stars are wont to appear,
indicating either the removal of dynasties or the breaking out of wars, or
the happening of such circumstances as may cause commotions upon the earth.
But we have read in the Treatise an Comets by Chaeremon the Stoic, that on
some occasions also, when good was to happen, comets made their appearance;
and he gives an account of such instances. If, then, at the commencement of
new dynasties, or on the occasion of other important events, there arises a
comet so called, or any similar celestial body, why should it be matter of
wonder that at the birth of Him who was to introduce a new doctrine to the
human race, and to make known His teaching not only to Jews, but also to
Greeks, and to many of the barbarous nations besides, a star should have
arisen? Now I would say, that with respect to comets there is no prophecy
in circulation to the effect that such and such a comet was to arise in
connection with a particular kingdom or a particular time; but with respect
to the appearance of a star at the birth of Jesus there is a prophecy of
Balaam recorded by Moses i to this effect: "There shall arise a star out of
Jacob, and a man shall rise up out of Israel."[1] And now, if it shall be
deemed necessary to examine the narrative about the Magi, and the
appearance of the star at the birth of Jesus, the following is what we have
to say, partly in answer to the Greeks, and partly to the Jews.

CHAP. LX.

   To the Greeks, then, I have to say that the Magi, being on familiar
terms with evil spirits, and invoking them for such purposes as their
knowledge and wishes extend to, bring about such results only as do not
appear to exceed the superhuman power and strength of the evil spirits, and
of the spells which invoke them, to accomplish; but should some greater
manifestation of divinity be made, then the powers of the evil spirits are
overthrown, being unable to resist the light of divinity. It is probable,
therefore, that since at the birth of Jesus "a multitude of the heavenly
host," as Luke records, and as I believe, "praised God, saying, Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men," the evil
spirits on that account became feeble, and lost their strength, the falsity
of their sorcery being manifested, and their power being broken; this
overthrow being brought about not only by the angels having visited the
terrestrial regions on account of the birth of Jesus, but also by the power
of Jesus Himself, and His innate divinity. The Magi, accordingly, wishing
to produce the customary results, which formerly they used to perform by
means of certain spells and sorceries, sought to know the reason of their
failure, conjecturing the cause to be a great one; and beholding a divine
sign in the heaven, they desired to learn its signification. I am therefore
of opinion that, possessing as they did the prophecies of Balaam, which
Moses also records, inasmuch as Balaam was celebrated for such predictions,
and finding among them the prophecy about the star, and the words, "I shall
show him to him, but not now; I deem him happy, although he will not be
near,"[1] they conjectured that the man whose appearance had been foretold
along with that of the star, had actually come into the world; and having
pro-determined that he was superior in power to all demons, and to all
common appearances and powers, they resolved to offer him homage. They
came, accordingly, to Judea, persuaded that some king had been born; but
not knowing over what kingdom he was to reign, and being ignorant also of
the place of his birth. bringing gifts, which they offered to him as one
whose nature partook, if I may so speak, both of God and of a mortal man,--
gold, viz., as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and incense, as
to a God; and they brought these offerings after they had learned the place
of His birth. But since He was a God, the Saviour of the human race, raised
far above all those angels which minister to men, an angel rewarded the
piety of the Magi for their worship of Him, by making known to them that
they were not to go back to Herod, but to return to their own homes by
another way.

CHAP. LXI.

   That Herod conspired against the Child (although the Jew of Celsus does
not believe that this really happened), is not to be wondered at. For
wickedness is in a certain sense blind, and would desire to defeat fate, as
if it were stronger than it. And this being Herod's condition, he both
believed that a king of the Jews had been born, and yet cherished a purpose
contradictory of such a belief; not seeing that the Child is assuredly
either a king and will come to the throne, or that he is not to be a king,
and that his death, therefore, will be to no purpose. He desired
accordingly to kill Him, his mind being agitated by contending passions on
account of his wickedness, and being instigated by the blind and wicked
devil who from the very beginning plotted against the Saviour, imagining
that He was and would become some mighty one. An angel, however, perceiving
the course of events, intimated to Joseph, although Celsus may not believe
it, that he was to withdraw with the Child and His mother into Egypt, while
Herod slew all the infants that were in Bethlehem and the surrounding
borders, in the hope that he would thus destroy Him also who had been born
King of the Jews. For he saw not the sleepless guardian power that is
around those who deserve to be protected and preserved for the salvation of
men, of whom Jesus is the first, superior to all others in honour and
excellence, who was to be a King indeed, but not in the sense that Herod
supposed, but in that in which it became God to bestow a kingdom,--for the
benefit, viz., of those who were to be under His sway, who was to confer no
ordinary and unimportant blessings, so to speak, upon His subjects, but who
was to train them and to subject them to laws that were truly from God. And
Jesus, knowing this well, and denying that He was a king in the sense that
the multitude expected, but declaring the superiority of His kingdom, says:
"If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not of this
world."[2] Now, if Celsus had seen this, he would not have said: "But if,
then, this was done in order that you might not reign in his stead when you
had grown to man's estate; why, after you did reach that estate, do you not
become a king, instead of you, the Son of God, wandering about in so mean a
condition, hiding yourself through fear, and leading a miserable life up
and down?" Now, it is not dishonourable to avoid exposing one's self to
dangers, but to guard carefully against them, when this is done, not
through fear of death, but from a desire to benefit others by remaining in
life, until the proper time come for one who has assumed human nature to
die a death that will be useful to mankind. And this is plain to him who
reflects that Jesus died for the sake of men,--a point of which we have
spoken to the best of our ability in the preceding pages.

CHAP. LXII.

   And after such statements, showing his ignorance even of the number of
the apostles, he proceeds thus: "Jesus having gathered around him ten or
eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of tax-gatherers
and sailors, fled in company with them from place to place, and obtained
his living in a shameful and importunate manner." Let us to the best of our
power see what truth there is in such a statement. It is manifest to us all
who possess the Gospel narratives, which Celsus does not appear even to
have read, that Jesus selected twelve apostles, and that of these Matthew
alone was a tax-gatherer; that when he calls them indiscriminately sailors,
he probably means James and John, because they left their ship and their
father Zebedee, and followed Jesus; for Peter and his brother Andrew, who
employed a net to gain their necessary subsistence, must be classed not as
sailors, but as the Scripture describes them, as fishermen. The Lebes[3]
also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was
not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one
of the copies of Mark's Gospel.[1] And we have not ascertained the
employments of the remaining disciples, by which they earned their
livelihood before becoming disciples of Jesus. I assert, therefore, in
answer to such statements as the above, that it is clear to all who are
able to institute an intelligent and candid examination into the history of
the apostles of Jesus, that it was by help of a divine power that these men
taught Christianity, and succeeded in leading others to embrace the word of
God. For it was not any power of speaking, or any orderly arrangement of
their message, according to the arts of Grecian dialectics or rhetoric,
which was in them the effective cause of converting their hearers. Nay, I
am of opinion that if Jesus had selected some individuals who were wise
according to the apprehension of the multitude, and who were fitted both to
think and speak so as to please them, and had used such as the ministers of
His doctrine, He would most justly have been suspected of employing
artifices, like those philosophers who are the leaders of certain sects,
and consequently the promise respecting the divinity of His doctrine would
not have manifested itself; for had the doctrine and the preaching
consisted in the persuasive utterance and arrangement of words, then faith
also, like that of the philosophers of the world in their opinions, would
have been through the wisdom of men, and not through the power of God. Now,
who is there on seeing fishermen and tax-gatherers, who had not acquired
even the merest elements of learning (as the Gospel relates of them, and in
respect to which Celsus believes that they speak the truth, inasmuch as it
is their own ignorance which they record), discoursing boldly not only
among the Jews of faith in Jesus, but also preaching Him with success among
other nations, would not inquire whence they derived this power of
persuasion, as theirs was certainly not the common method followed by the
multitude? And who would not say that the promise, "Follow Me, and I will
make you fishers of men,"[2] had been accomplished by Jesus in the history
of His apostles by a sort of divine power? And to this also, Paul,
referring in terms of commendation, as we have stated a little above, says:
"And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith
should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."[3] For,
according to the predictions in the prophets, foretelling the preaching of
the Gospel, "the Lord gave the word in great power to them who preached it,
even the King of the powers of the Beloved,"[4] in order that the prophecy
might be fulfilled which said, "His words shall run very swiftly."[5] And
we see that "the voice of the apostles of Jesus has gone forth into all the
earth, and their words to the end of the world,"[6] On this account are
they who hear the word powerfully proclaimed filled with power, which they
manifest both by their dispositions and their lives, and by struggling even
to death on behalf of the truth; while some are altogether empty, although
they profess to believe in God through Jesus, inasmuch as, not possessing
any divine power, they have the appearance only of being converted to the
word of God. And although I have previously mentioned a Gospel declaration
uttered by the Saviour, I shall nevertheless quote it again, as appropriate
to the present occasion, as it confirms both the divine manifestation of
our Saviour's foreknowledge regarding the preaching of His Gospel, and the
power of His word, which without the aid of teachers gains the mastery over
those who yield their assent to persuasion accompanied with divine power;
and the words of Jesus referred to are, "The harvest is plenteous, but the
labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He will
send forth labourers into His harvest."[7]

CHAP. LXIII.

   And since Celsus has termed the apostles of Jesus men of infamous
notoriety, saying that they were tax-gatherers and sailors of the vilest
character, we have to remark, with respect to this charge, that he seems,
in order to bring an accusation against Christianity, to believe the Gospel
accounts only where he pleases, and to express his disbelief of them, in
order that he may not be forced to admit the manifestations of Divinity
related in these same books; whereas one who sees the spirit of truth by
which the writers are influenced, ought, from their narration of things of
inferior importance, to believe also the account of divine things. Now in
the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which perhaps Celsus took the
statement that the apostles were notoriously wicked men, it is recorded
that "Jesus selected His own apostles, as persons who were more guilty of
sin than all other evildoers."[8] And in the Gospel according to Luke,
Peter says to Jesus, "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man."[9]
Moreover, Paul, who himself also at a later time became an apostle of
Jesus, says in his Epistle to Timothy, "This is a faithful saying, that
Jesus Christ came into, the world to save sinners, of whom I am the
chief."[1] And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have
thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the
Churches that are in Christ. He saw, probably, that anything he might say
about that apostle would require to be explained, in consistency with the
fact that, after being a persecutor of the Church of God, and a bitter
opponent of believers, who went so far even as to deliver over the
disciples of Jesus to death, so great a change afterwards passed over him,
that he preached the Gospel of Jesus from Jerusalem round about to
Illyricum, and was ambitious to carry the glad tidings where he needed not
to build upon another man's foundation, but to places where the Gospel of
God in Christ had not been proclaimed at all. What absurdity, therefore, is
there, if Jesus, desiring to manifest to the human race the power which He
possesses to heal souls, should have selected notorious and wicked men, and
should have raised them to such a degree of moral excellence, that they,
became a pattern of the purest virtue to all who were converted by their
instrumentality to the Gospel of Christ?

CHAP. LXIV.

   But if we were to reproach those who have been converted with their
former lives, then we would have occasion to accuse Phaedo also, even after
he became a philosopher; since, as the history relates, he was drawn away
by Socrates from a house of bad fame[2] to the pursuits of philosophy. Nay,
even the licentious life of Polemo, the successor of Xenocrates, will be a
subject of reproach to philosophy; whereas even in these instances we ought
to regard it as a ground of praise, that reasoning was enabled, by the
persuasive power of these men, to convert from the practice of such vices
those who had been formerly entangled by them. Now among the Greeks there
was only one Phaedo, I know, not if there were a second, and one Polemo,
who betook themselves to philosophy, after a licentious and most wicked
life; while with Jesus there were not only at the time we speak of, the
twelve disciples, but many more at all times, who, becoming a band of
temperate men, speak in the following terms of their former lives: "For we
ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving
divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating
one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour
towards man appeared, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost, which He shed upon us richly,"[3] we became such as we are. For
"God sent forth His Word and healed them, and delivered them from their
destructions,"[4] as the prophet taught in the book of Psalms. And in
addition to what has been already said, I would add the following: that
Chrysippus, in his treatise on the Cure of the Passions, in his endeavours
to restrain the passions of the human soul, not pretending to determine
what opinions are the true ones, says that according to the principles of
the different sects are those to be cured who have been brought under the
dominion of the passions, and continues: "And if pleasure be an end, then
by it must the passions be healed; and if there be three kinds of chief
blessings, still, according to this doctrine, it is in the same way that
those are to be freed from their passions who are under their dominion;"
whereas the assailants of Christianity do not see in how many persons the
passions have been brought under restraint, and the flood of wickedness
checked, and savage manners softened, by means of the Gospel. So that it
well became those who are ever boasting of their zeal for the public good,
to make a public acknowledgement of their thanks to that doctrine which by
a new method led men to abandon many vices, and to bear their testimony at
least to it, that even though not the truth, it has at all events been
productive of benefit to the human race.

CHAP. LXV.

   And since Jesus, in teaching His disciples not to be guilty of
rashness, gave them the precept. "If they persecute you in this city, flee
ye into another; and if they persecute you in the other, flee again into a
third,"[5] to which teaching He added the example of a consistent life,
acting so as not to expose Himself to danger rashly, or unseasonably, or
without good grounds; from this Celsus takes occasion to bring a malicious
and slanderous accusation,--the Jew whom he brings forward saying to Jesus,
"In company with your disciples you go and hide yourself in different
places." Now similar to what has thus been made the ground of a slanderous
charge against Jesus and His disciples, do we say was the conduct recorded
of Aristotle. This philosopher, seeing that a court was about to be
summoned to try him, on the ground of his being guilty of impiety on
account of certain of his philosophical tenets which the Athenians regarded
as impious, withdrew from Athens, and fixed his school in Chalcis,
defending his course of procedure to his friends by saying, "Let us depart
from Athens, that we may not give the Athenians a handle for incurring
guilt a second time, as formerly in the case of Socrates, and so prevent
them from committing a second act of impiety against philosophy." He
further says, "that Jesus went about with His disciples, and obtained His
livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate manner." Let him show wherein
lay the disgraceful and importunate element in their manner of subsistence.
For it is related in the Gospels, that there were certain women who had
been healed of their diseases, among whom also was Susanna, who from their
own possessions afforded the disciples the means of support. And who is
there among philosophers, that, when devoting himself to the service of his
acquaintances, is not in the habit of receiving from them what is needful
for his wants? Or is it only in them that such acts are proper and
becoming; but when the disciples of Jesus do the same, they are accused by
Celsus of obtaining their livelihood by disgraceful importunity?

CHAP. LXVI.

   And in addition to the above, this Jew of Celsus afterwards addresses
Jesus: "What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant,
should be conveyed into Egygt? Was it to escape being murdered? But then it
was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel came
down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest ye should
be captured and put to death! And was not the great God, who had already
sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son, there in
safety?" From these words Celsus seems to think that there was no element
of divinity in the human body and soul of Jesus, but that His body was not
even such as is described in the fables of Homer; and with a taunt also at
the blood of Jesus which was shed upon the cross, he adds that it was not

   "Ichor, such as flows in the veins of the blessed gods."[1]

We now, believing Jesus Himself, when He says respecting His divinity, "I
am the way, and the truth, and the life,"[2] and employs other terms of
similar import; and when He says respecting His being clothed with a human
body, "And now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth,"[3]
conclude that He was a kind of compound being. And so it became Him who was
making provision for His sojourning in the world as a human being, not to
expose Himself unseasonably to the danger of death. And in like manner it
was necessary that He should be taken away by His parents, acting under the
instructions of an angel from heaven, who communicated to them the divine
will, saying on the first occasion, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to
take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the
Holy Ghost;"[4] and on the second, "Arise, and take the young Child, and
His mother, and flee into Egypt; and be thou there until I bring thee word:
for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him."[5] Now, what is
recorded in these words appears to me to be not at all marvellous. For in
either passage of Scripture it is stated that it was in a dream that the
angel spoke these words; and that in a dream certain persons may have
certain things pointed out to them to do, is an event of frequent
occurrence to many individuals,--the impression on the mind being produced
either by an angel or by some other thing. Where, then, is the absurdity in
believing that He who had once become incarnate, should be led also by
human guidance to keep out of the way of dangers? Not indeed from any
impossibility that it should be otherwise, but from the moral fitness that
ways and means should be made use of to ensure the safety of Jesus. And it
was certainly better that the Child Jesus should escape the snare of Herod,
and should reside with His parents in Egypt until the death of the
conspirator, than that Divine Providence should hinder the free-will of
Herod in his wish to put the Child to death, or that the fabled poetic
helmet of Hades should have been employed, or anything of a similar kind
done with respect to Jesus, or that they who came to destroy Him should
have been smitten with blindness like the people of Sodom. For the sending
of help to Him in a very miraculous and unnecessarily public manner, would
not have been of any service to Him who, wished to show that as a man, to
whom witness was borne by God, He possessed within that form which was seen
by the eyes of men some higher element of divinity,--that which was
properly the Son of God--God the Word--the power of God, and the wisdom of
God--He who is called the Christ. But this is not a suitable occasion for
discussing the composite nature of the incarnate Jesus; the investigation
into such a subject being for believers, so to speak, a sort of private
question.

CHAP. LXVII.

   After the above, this Jew of Celsus, as if he were a Greek who loved
learning, and were well instructed in Greek literature, continues: "The old
mythological fables, which attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and
Amphion, and AEacus, and Minos, were not believed by us. Nevertheless, that
they might not appear unworthy of credit, they represented the deeds of
these personages as great and wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man;
but what hast thou done that is noble or wonderful either in deed or in
word? Thou hast made no manifestation to us, although they challenged you
in the temple to exhibit some unmistakeable sign that you were the Son of
God." In reply to which we have to say Let the Greeks show to us, among
those who have been enumerated, any one whose deeds have been marked by a
utility and splendour extending to after generations, and which have been
so great as to produce a belief in the fables which represented them as of
divine descent. But these Greeks can show us nothing regarding those men of
whom they speak, which is even inferior by a great degree to what Jesus
did; unless they take us back to their fables and histories, wishing us to
believe them without any reasonable grounds, and to discredit the Gospel
accounts even after the clearest evidence. For we assert that the whole
habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus, in the existence
of those Churches of God which have been founded through Him by those who
have been converted from the practice of innumerable sins.[1] And the name
of Jesus can still remove distractions from the minds of men, and expel
demons, and also take away diseases; and produce a marvellous meekness of
spirit and complete change of character, and a humanity, and goodness, and
gentleness in those individuals who do not feign themselves to be
Christians for the sake of subsistence or the supply of any mortal wants,
but who have honestly accepted the doctrine concerning God and Christ, and
the judgment to come.

CHAP. LXVIII.

   But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that the great works
performed by Jesus, of which we have named a few out of a great number,
would be brought forward to view, affects to grant that those statements
may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His resurrection, or the
feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from which many fragments
remained over, or those other stories which Celsus thinks the disciples
have recorded as of a marvellous nature; and he adds: "Well, let us believe
that these were actually wrought by you." But then he immediately compares
them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things,
and to the feats performed by those who have been taught by Egyptians, who
in the middle of the market-place, in return for a few obols, will impart
the knowledge of their most venerated arts, and will expel demons from men,
and dispel diseases, and invoke the souls of heroes, and exhibit expensive
banquets, and tables, and dishes, and dainties having no real existence,
and who will put in motion, as if alive, what are not really living
animals, but which have only the appearance of life. And he asks, "Since,
then, these persons can perform such feats, shall we of necessity conclude
that they are 'sons of God,' or must we admit that they are the proceedings
of wicked men under the influence of an evil spirit?" You see that by these
expressions he allows, as it were, the existence of magic. I do not know,
however, if he is the same who wrote several books against it. But, as it
helped his purpose, he compares the (miracles) related of Jesus to the
results produced by magic. There would indeed be a resemblance between
them, if Jesus, like the dealers in magical arts, had performed His works
only for show; but now there is not a single juggler who, by means of his
proceedings, invites his spectators to reform their manners, or trains
those to the fear of God who are amazed at what they see, nor who tries to
persuade them so to live as men who are to be justified[2] by God. And
jugglers do none of these things, because they have neither the power nor
the will, nor any desire to busy themselves about the reformation of men,
inasmuch as their own lives are full of the grossest and most notorious
sins. But how should not He who, by the miracles which He did, induced
those who beheld the excellent results to undertake the reformation of
their characters, manifest Himself not only to His genuine disciples, but
also to others, as a pattern of most virtuous life, in order that His
disciples might devote themselves to the work of instructing men in the
will of God, and that the others, after being more fully instructed by His
word and character than by His miracles, as to how they were to direct
their lives, might in all their conduct have a constant reference to the
good pleasure of the universal God? And if such were the life of Jesus, how
could any one with reason compare Him with the sect of impostors, and not,
on the contrary, believe, according to the promise, that He was God, who
appeared in human form to do good to our race?

CHAP. LXIX.

   After this, Celsus, confusing together the Christian doctrine and the
opinions of some heretical sect, and bringing them forward as charges that
were applicable to all who believe in the divine word, says: "Such a body
as yours could not have belonged to God." Now, in answer to this, we have
to say that Jesus, on entering into the world, assumed, as one born of a
woman, a human body, and one which was capable of suffering a natural
death. For which reason, in addition to others, we say that He was also a
great wrestler;[1] having, on account of His human body, been tempted in
all respects like other men, but no longer as men, with sin as a
consequence, but being altogether without sin. For it is distinctly clear
to us that "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; and as one
who knew no sin,"[2] God delivered Him up as pure for all who had sinned.
Then Celsus says: "The body of god would not have been so generated as you,
O Jesus, were." He saw, besides, that if, as it is written, it had been
born, His body somehow might be even more divine than that of the
multitude, and in a certain sense a body of god. But he disbelieves the
accounts of His conception by the Holy Ghost, and believes that He was
begotten by one Panthera, who corrupted the Virgin, "because a god's body
would not have been so generated as you were." But we have spoken of these
matters at greater length in the preceding pages.

CHAP. LXX.

   He asserts, moreover, that "the body of a god is not nourished with
such food (as was that of Jesus)," since he is able to prove from. the
Gospel narratives both that He partook of food, and food of a particular
kind. Well, be it so. Let him assert that He ate the passover with His
disciples, when He not only used the words, "With desire have I desired to
eat this passover with you," but also actually partook of the same. And let
him say also, that He experienced the sensation of thirst beside the well
of Jacob, and drank of the water of the well. In what respect do these
facts militate against what we have said respecting the nature of His body?
Moreover, it appears indubitable that after His resurrection He ate a piece
of fish; for, according to our view, He assumed a (true) body, as one born
of a woman. "But," objects Celsus, "the body of a god does not make use of
such a voice as that of Jesus, nor employ such a method of persuasion as
he." These are, indeed, trifling and altogether contemptible objections.
For our reply to him will be, that he who is believed among the Greeks to
be a god, viz., the Pythian and Didymean Apollo, makes use of such a voice
for his Pythian priestess at Delphi, and for his prophetess at Miletus; and
yet neither the Pythian nor Didymean is charged by the Greeks with not
being a god, nor any other Grecian deity whose worship is established in
one place. And it was far better, surely, that a god should employ a voice
which, on account of its being uttered with power, should produce an
indescribable sort of persuasion in the minds of the hearers.

CHAP. LXXI.

   Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on account of his
impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by God, he asserts
that "these tenets of his were those of a wicked and God-hated sorcerer."
And yet, if the name and the thing be properly examined, it will be found
an impossibility that man should be hated by God, seeing God loves all
existing things, and "hateth nothing of what He has made," for He created
nothing in a spirit of hatred. And if certain expressions in the prophets
convey such an impression, they are to be interpreted in accordance with
the general principle by which Scripture employs such language with regard
to God as if He were subject to human affections. But what reply need be
made to him who, while professing to bring foreward credible statements,
thinks himself bound to make use of calumnies and slanders against Jesus,
as if He were a wicked sorcerer? Such is not the procedure of one who seeks
to make good his case, but of one who is in an ignorant and unphilosophic
state of mind, inasmuch as the proper course is to state the case, and
candidly to investigate it; and, according to the best of his ability, to
bring forward what occurs to him with regard to it. But as the Jew of
Celsus has, with the above remarks, brought to a close his charges against
Jesus, so we also shall here bring to a termination the contents of our
first book in reply to him. And if God bestow the gift of that truth which
destroys all falsehood, agreeably to the words of the prayer, "Cut them off
in thy truth,"[3] we shall begin, in what follows, the consideration of the
second appearance of the Jew, in which he is represented by Celsus as
addressing those who have become converts to Jesus.

ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS.

BOOK II.

CHAP. I.

   THE first book of our answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled A True
Discourse, which con-eluded with the representation of the Jew addressing
Jesus, having now extended to a sufficient length, we intend the present
part as a reply to the charges brought by him against those who have been
converted from Judaism to Christianity.[1] And we call attention, in the
first place, to this special question, viz., why Celsus, when he had once
resolved upon the introduction of individuals upon the stage of his book,
did not represent the Jew as addressing the converts from heathenism rather
than those from Judaism, seeing that his discourse, if directed to us,
would have appeared more likely to produce an impression.[2] But probably
this claimant to universal knowledge does not know what is appropriate in
the matter of such representations; and therefore let us proceed to
consider what he has to say to the converts from Judaism. He asserts that
"they have forsaken the law of their fathers, in consequence of their minds
being led captive by Jesus; that they have been most ridiculously deceived,
and that they have become deserters to another name and to another mode of
life." Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted
the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its
prescriptions, receiving their very name from the poverty of the law,
according to the literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies
"poor" among the Jews,[3] and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ
are called by the name of Ebionites. Nay, Peter himself seems to have
observed for a considerable time the Jewish observances enjoined by the law
of Moses, not having yet learned from Jesus to ascend from the law that is
regulated according to the letter, to that which is interpreted according
to the spirit,--a fact which we learn from the Acts of the Apostles. For on
the day after the angel of God appeared to Cornelius, suggesting to him "to
send to Joppa, to Simon surnamed Peter," Peter "went up into the upper room
to pray about the sixth hour. And he became very hungry, and would have
eaten: but while they made ready he fell into a trance, and saw heaven
opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great
sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all
manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls
of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But
Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or
unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath
cleansed, that call thou not common."[4] Now observe how, by this instance,
Peter is represented as still observing the Jewish customs respecting clean
and unclean animals. And from the narrative that follows, it is manifest
that he, as being yet a Jew, and living according to their traditions, and
despising those who were beyond the pale of Judaism, stood in need of a
vision to lead him to communicate to Cornelius (who was not an Israelite
according to the flesh), and to those who were with him, the word of faith.
Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul states that Peter, still
from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of James to eat with the
Gentiles, and "separated himself from them, fearing them that were of the
circumcision;"[5] and the rest of the Jews, and Barnabas also, followed the
same course. And certainly it was quite consistent that those should not
abstain from the observance of Jewish usages who were sent to minister to
the circumcision, when they who "seemed to be pillars" gave the right hand
of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, in order that, while devoting
themselves to the circumcision, the latter might preach to the Gentiles.
And why do I mention that they who preached to the circumcision withdrew
and separated themselves from the heathen, when even Paul himself "became
as a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews?" Wherefore also in the
Acts of the Apostles it is related that he even brought an offering to the
altar, that he might satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their
law.[1] Now, if Celsus had been acquainted with all these circumstances, he
would not have represented the Jew holding such language as this to the
converts from Judaism: "What induced you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon
the law of your fathers, and to allow your minds to be led captive by him
with whom we have just conversed, and thus be most ridiculously deluded, so
as to become deserters from us to another name, and to the practices of
another life?"

CHAP. II.

   Now, since we are upon the subject of Peter, and of the teachers of
Christianity to the circumcision, I do not deem it out of place to quote a
certain declaration of Jesus taken from the Gospel according to John, and
to give the explanation of the same. For it is there related that Jesus
said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all
the truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear,
that shall He speak."[2] And when we inquire what were the "many things"
referred to in the passage which Jesus had to say to His disciples, but
which they were not then able to bear, I have to observe that, probably
because the apostles were Jews, and had been trained up according to the
letter of the Mosaic law, He was unable to tell them what was the true law,
and how the Jewish worship consisted in the pattern and shadow of certain
heavenly things, and how future blessings were foreshadowed by the
injunctions regarding meats and drinks, and festivals, and new moons, and
sabbaths. These were many of the subjects which He had to explain to them;
but as He saw that it was a work of exceeding difficulty to root out of the
mind opinions that have been almost born with a man, and amid which he has
been brought up till he reached the period of maturity, and which have
produced in those who have adopted them the belief that they are divine,
and that it is an act of impiety to overthrow them; and to demonstrate by
the superiority of Christian doctrine, that is, by the truth, in a manner
to convince the hearers, that such opinions were but "loss and dung," He
postponed such a task to a future season--to that, namely, which followed
His passion and resurrection. For the bringing of aid unseasonably to those
who were not yet capable of receiving it, might have overturned the idea
which they had already formed of Jesus, as the Christ, and the Son of the
living God. And see if there is not some well-grounded reason for such a
statement as this, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear
them now;" seeing there are many points in the law which require to be
explained and cleared up in a spiritual sense, and these the disciples were
in a manner unable to bear, having been born and brought up amongst Jews. I
am of opinion, moreover, that since these rites were typical, and the truth
was that which was to be taught them by the Holy Spirit, these words were
added, "When He is come who is the Spirit of truth, He will lead you into
all the truth;" as if He had said, into all the truth about those things
which, being to you but types, ye believed to constitute a true worship
which ye rendered unto God. And so, according to the promise of Jesus, the
Spirit of truth came to Peter, saying to him, with regard to the four-
footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air:
"Arise, Peter; kill, and eat." And the Spirit came to him while he was
still in a state of superstitious ignorance; for he said, in answer to the
divine command, "Not so Lord; for I have never yet eaten anything common or
unclean." He instructed him, however, in the true and spiritual meaning of
meats, by saying, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." And
so, after that vision, the Spirit of truth, which conducted Peter into all
the truth, told him the many things which he was unable to bear when Jesus
was still with him in the flesh. But I shall have another opportunity of
explaining those matters, which are connected with the literal acceptation
of the Mosaic law.

CHAP. III.

   Our present object, however, is to expose the ignorance of Celsus, who
makes this Jew of his address his fellow-citizen and the Israelitish
converts in the following manner: "What induced you to abandon the law of
your fathers?" etc. Now, how should they have abandoned the law of their
fathers, who are in the habit of rebuking those who do not listen to its
commands, saying, "Tell me, ye who read the law, do ye not hear the law?
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons;" and so on, down to the
place, "which things are an allegory,"[3] etc.? And how have they abandoned
the law of their fathers, who are ever speaking of the usages of their
fathers in such words as these: "Or does not the law say these things also?
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of
the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God care for oxen? or saith He it
altogether for our sakes? for for our sakes it was written," and so on?[1]
Now, how confused is the reasoning of the Jew in regard to these matters
(although he had it in his power to speak with greater effect) when he
says: "Certain among you have abandoned the usages of our fathers under a
pretence of explanations and allegories; and some of you, although, as ye
pretend, interpreting them in a spiritual manner, nevertheless do observe
the customs of our fathers; and some of you, without any such
interpretation, are willing to accept Jesus as the subject of prophecy, and
to keep the law of Moses according to the customs of the fathers, as having
in the words the whole mind of the Spirit." Now how was Celsus able to see
these things so clearly in this place, when in the subsequent parts of his
work he makes mention of certain godless heresies altogether alien from the
doctrine of Jesus, and even of others which leave the Creator out of
account altogether, and does not appear to know that there are Israelites
who are converts to Christianity, and who have not abandoned the law of
their fathers? It was not his object to investigate everything here in the
spirit of truth, and to accept whatever he might find to be useful; but he
composed these statements in the spirit of an enemy, and with a desire to
overthrow everything as soon as he heard it.

CHAP. IV.

   The Jew, then, continues his address to converts from his own nation
thus: "Yesterday and the day before, when we visited with punishment the
man who deluded you, ye became apostates from the law of your fathers;"
showing by such statements (as we have just demonstrated) anything but an
exact knowledge of the truth. But what he advances afterwards seems to have
some force, when he says: "How is it that you take the beginning of your
system from our worship, and when you have made some progress you treat it
with disrespect, although you have no other foundation to show for your
doctrines than our law?" Now, certainly the introduction to Christianity is
through the Mosaic worship and the prophetic writings; and after the
introduction, it is in the interpretation and explanation of these that
progress takes place, while those who are introduced prosecute their
investigations into "the mystery according to revelation, which was kept
secret since the world began, but now is made manifest in the Scriptures of
the prophets,"[2] and by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they
who advance in the knowledge of Christianity do not, as ye allege, treat
the things written in the law with disrespect. On the contrary, they bestow
upon them greater honour, showing what a depth of wise and mysterious
reasons is contained in these writings, which are not fully comprehended by
the Jews, who treat them superficially, and as if they were in some degree
even fabulous.[3] And what absurdity should there be in our system--that
is, the Gospel--having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus
Himself said to those who would not believe upon Him: "If ye had believed
Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye do not
believe his writings, how shall ye believe My words?"[4] Nay, even one of
the evangelists--Mark--says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before
Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee,"[5] which shows that the
beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings. What force,
then, is there in the objection of the Jew of Celsus, that "if any one
predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our
prophets, and the prophet of our God?" Or how is it a charge against
Christianity, that John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For although He was
a Jew, it does not follow that every believer, whether a convert from
heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal obedience to the law of
Moses.

CHAP. V.

   After these matters, although Celsus becomes tautological in his
statements about Jesus, repeating for the second time that "he was punished
by the Jews for his crimes," we shall not again take up the defence, being
satisfied with what we have already said. But, in the next place, as this
Jew of his disparages the doctrine regarding the resurrection of the dead,
and the divine judgment, and of the rewards to be bestowed upon the just,
and of the fire which is to devour the wicked, as being stale[6] opinions,
and thinks that he will overthrow Christianity by asserting that there is
nothing new in its teaching upon these points, we have to say to him, that
our Lord, seeing the conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with
the teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of
God would be taken from them, and given to the converts from heathenism.
For which reason, now, we may also see of a truth that all the doctrines of
the Jews of the present day are mere trifles and fables,[1] since they have
not the light that proceeds from the knowledge of the Scriptures; whereas
those of the Christians are the truth, having power to raise and elevate
the soul and understanding of man, and to persuade him to seek a
citizenship, not like the earthly[2] Jews here below, but in heaven. And
this result shows itself among those who are able to see the grandeur of
the ideas contained in the law and the prophets, and who are able to
commend them to others.

CHAP. VI.

   But let it be granted that Jesus observed all the JewiSh usages,
including even their sacrificial observances, what does that avail to
prevent our recognising Him as the Son of God? Jesus, then, is the Son of
God, who gave the law and the prophets; and we, who belong to the Church,
do not transgress the law, but have escaped the mythologizings[3] of the
Jews, and have our minds chastened and educated by the mystical
contemplation of the law and the prophets. For the prophets themselves, as
not resting the sense of these Words in the plain history which they
relate, nor in the legal enactments taken according to the word and letter,
express themselves somewhere, when about to relate histories, in words like
this, "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hard sayings of
old;"[4] and in another place, when offering up a prayer regarding the law
as being obscure, and needing divine help for its comprehension, they offer
up this prayer, "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out
of Thy law."[5]

CHAP. VII.

   Moreover, let them show where there is to be found even the appearance
of language dictated by arrogance[6] and proceeding from Jesus. For how
could an arrogant man thus express himself "Learn of Me, for I am meek and
lowly of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls?"[7] or how can He
be styled arrogant, who after supper laid aside His garments in the
presence of His disciples, and, after girding Himself with a towel, and
pouring water into a basin, proceeded to wash the feet of each disciple,
and rebuked him who was unwilling to allow them to be washed, with the
words, "Except I wash thee, thou hast no part with Me?[8] Or how could He
be called such who said, "I was amongst you, not as he that sitteth at
meat, but as he that serveth?"[9] And let any one show what were the
falsehoods which He uttered, and let him point out what are great and what
are small falsehoods, that he may prove Jesus to have been guilty of the
former. And there is yet another way in which we may confute him. For as
one falsehood is not less or more false than another, so one truth is not
less or more true than another. And what charges of impiety he has to bring
against Jesus, let the Jew of Celsus especially bring forward. Was it
impious to abstain from corporeal circumcision, and from a literal Sabbath,
and literal festivals, and literal new moons, and from clean and unclean
meats, and to turn the mind to the good and true and spiritual law of God,
while at the same time he who was an ambassador for Christ knew how to
become to the Jews as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to those who
are under the law, as under the law, that he might gain those who are under
the law?

CHAP. VIII.

   He says, further, that "many other persons would appear such as Jesus
was, to those who were willing to be deceived." Let this Jew of Celsus then
show us, not many persons, nor even a few, but a single individual, such as
Jesus was, introducing among the human race, with the power that was
manifested in Him, a system of doctrine and opinions beneficial to human
life, and which converts men from the practice of wickedness. He says,
moreover, that this charge is brought against the Jews by the Christian
converts, that they have not believed in Jesus as in God. Now on this point
we have, in the preceding pages, offered a preliminary defence, showing at
the same time in what respects we understand Him to be God, and in what we
take Him to be man. "How should we," he continues, "who have made known to
all men that there is to come from God one who is to punish the wicked,
treat him with disregard when he came?" And to this, as an exceedingly
silly argument, it does not seem to me reasonable to offer any answer. It
is as if some one were to say, "How could we, who teach temperance, commit
any act of licentiousness? or we, who are ambassadors for righteousness, be
guilty of any wickedness?" For as these inconsistencies are found among
men, so, to say that they believed the prophets when speaking of the future
advent of Christ, and yet refused their belief to Him when He came,
agreeably to prophetic statement, was quite in keeping with human nature.
And since we must add another reason, we shall remark that this very result
was foretold by the prophets. Isaiah distinctly declares: "Hearing ye shall
hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not
perceive: for the heart of this people has become fat,"[1] etc. And let
them explain why it was predicted to the Jews, that although they both
heard and saw, they would not understand what was said, nor perceive what
was seen as they ought. For it is indeed manifest, that when they beheld
Jesus they did not see who He was; and when they heard Him, they did not
understand from His words the divinity that was in Him, and which
transferred God's providential care, hitherto exercised over the Jews, to
His converts from the heathen. Therefore we may see, that after the advent
of Jesus the Jews were altogether abandoned, and possess now none of what
were considered their ancient glories, so that there is no indication of
any Divinity abiding amongst them. For they have no longer prophets nor
miracles, traces of which to a considerable extent are still found among
Christians, and some of them more remarkable than any that existed among
the Jews; and these we ourselves have witnessed, if our testimony may be
received? But the Jew of Celsus exclaims: "Why did we treat him, whom we
announced beforehand, with dishonour? Was it that we might be chastised
more than others?" To which we have to answer, that on account of their
unbelief, and the other insults which they heaped upon Jesus, the Jews will
not only suffer more than others in that judgment which is believed to
impend over the world, but have even already endured such sufferings. For
what nation is an exile from their own metropolis, and from the place
sacred to the worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And these
calamities they have suffered, because they were a most wicked nation,
which, although guilty of many other sins, yet has been punished so
severely for none, as for those that were committed against our Jesus.

CHAP. IX.

   The Jew continues his discourse thus: "How should we deem him to be a
God, who not only in other respects, as was currently reported, performed
none of his promises, but who also, after we had convicted him, and
condemned him as. deserving of punishment, was found attempting to conceal
himself, and endeavouring to escape in a most disgraceful manner, and who
was betrayed by those whom he called disciples? And yet," he continues, "he
who was a God could neither flee nor be led away a prisoner; and least of
all could he be deserted and delivered up by those who had been his
associates, and had shared all things in common, and had had him for their
teacher, who was deemed to be a Saviour, and a son of the greatest God, and
an angel." To which we reply, that even we do not suppose the body of
Jesus, which was then an object of sight and perception, to have been God.
And why do I say His body? Nay, not even His soul, of which it is related,
"My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death."[3] But as, according to
the Jewish manner of speaking, "I am the Lord, the God of all flesh," and,
"Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me," God
is believed to be He who employs the soul and body of the prophet as an
instrument; and as, according to the Greeks, he who says,

   "I know both the number of the sand, and the measures of the sea,
   And I understand a dumb man, and hear him who does not speak,"[4]

is considered to be a god when speaking, and making himself heard through
the Pythian priestess; so, according to our view, it was the Logos God, and
Son of the God of all things, who spake in Jesus these words, "I am the
way, and the truth, and the life;" and these, "I am the door;" and these,
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven;" and other expressions
similar to these. We therefore charge the Jews with not acknowledging Him
to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many passages by the prophets, to
the effect that He was a mighty power, and a God next to[5] the God and
Father of all things. For we assert that it was to Him the Father gave the
command, when in the Mosaic account of the creation He uttered the words,
"Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament," and gave the
injunctions with regard to those other creative acts which were performed;
and that to Him also were addressed the words, "Let Us make man in Our own
image and likeness;" and that the Logos, when commanded, obeyed all the
Father's will. And we make these statements not from our own conjectures,
but because we believe the prophecies circulated among the Jews, in which
it is said of God, and of the works of creation, in express words, as
follows: "He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were
created."[1] Now if God gave the command, and the creatures were formed,
who, according to the view of the spirit of prophecy, could He be that was
able to carry out such commands of the Father, save Him who, so to speak,
is the living Logos and the Truth? And that the Gospels do not consider him
who in Jesus said these words, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life,"
to have been of so circumscribed a nature? as to have an existence nowhere
out of the soul and body of Jesus, is evident both from many
considerations, and from a few instances of the following kind which we
shall quote. John the Baptist, when predicting that the Son of God was to
appear immediately, not in that body and soul, but as manifesting Himself
everywhere, says regarding Him: "There stands in the midst of you One whom
ye know not, who cometh after me."[3] For if he had thought that the Son of
God was only there, where was the visible body of Jesus, how could he have
said, "There stands in the midst of you One whom ye know not?" And Jesus
Himself, in raising the minds of His disciples to higher thoughts of the
Son of God, says: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name,
there am I in the midst of you."[4] And of the same nature is His promise
to His disciples: "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the
world."[5] And we quote these passages, making no distinction between the
Son of God and Jesus. For the soul and body of Jesus formed, after the
oikonomi'a, one being with the Logos of God. Now if, according to Paul's
teaching, "he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit,"[6] every one who
understands what being joined to the Lord is, and who has been actually
joined to Him, is one spirit with the Lord; how should not that being be
one in a far greater and more divine degree, which was once united with the
Logos of God?[7] He, indeed, manifested Himself among the Jews as the power
of God, by the miracles which He performed, which Celsus suspected were
accomplished by sorcery, but which by the Jews of that time were attributed
I know not why, to Beelzebub, in the words "He casteth out devils through
Beelzebub, the prince of the devils."[8] But these our Saviour convicted of
uttering the greatest absurdities, from the fact that the kingdom of evil
was not yet come to an end. And this will be evident to all intelligent
readers of the Gospel narrative, which it is not now the time to explain.

CHAP. X.

   But what promise did Jesus make which He did not perform? Let Celsus
produce any instance of such, and make good his charge. But he will be
unable to do so, especially since it is from mistakes, arising either from
misapprehension of the Gospel narratives, or from Jewish stories, that he
thinks to derive the charges which he brings against Jesus or against
ourselves. Moreover, again, when the Jew says, "We both found him guilty,
and condemned him as deserving of death," let them show how they who sought
to concoct false witness against Him proved Him to be guilty. Was not the
great charge against Jesus, which His accusers brought forward, this, that
He said, "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to
raise it up again?"[9] But in so saying, He spake of the temple of His
body; while they thought, not being able to understand the meaning of the
speaker, that His reference was to the temple of stone, which was treated
by the Jews with greater respect than He was who ought to have been
honoured as the true Temple of God--the Word, and the Wisdom, and the
Truth. And who can say that "Jesus attempted to make His escape by
disgracefully concealing Himself?" Let any one point to an act deserving to
be called disgraceful. And when he adds, "he was taken prisoner," I would
say that, if to be taken prisoner implies an act done against one's will,
then Jesus was not taken prisoner; for at the fitting time He did not
prevent Himself falling into the hands of men, as the Lamb of God, that He
might take away the sin of the world. For, knowing all things that were to
come upon Him, He went forth, and said to them, "Whom seek ye?" and they
answered, "Jesus of Nazareth;" and He said unto them, "I am He." And Judas
also, who betrayed Him, was standing with them. When, therefore, He had
said to them, "I am He," they went backwards and fell to the ground. Again
He asked them, "Whom seek ye?" and they said again, "Jesus of Nazareth."
Jesus said to them, "I told you I am He; if then ye seek Me, let these go
away."[10] Nay, even to Him who wished to help Him, and who smote the high
priest's servant, and cut off his ear, He said: "Put up thy sword into its
sheath: for all they who draw the sword shall perish by the sword. Thinkest
thou that I cannot even now pray to My Father, and He will presently give
Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures
be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"[1] And if any one imagines these
statements to be inventions of the writers of the Gospels, why should not
those statements rather be regarded as inventions which proceeded from a
spirit of hatred and hostility against Jesus and the Christians? and these
the truth, which proceed from those who manifest the sincerity of their
feelings towards Jesus, by enduring everything, whatever it may be, for the
sake of His words? For the reception by the disciples of such power of
endurance and resolution continued even to death, with a disposition of
mind that would not invent regarding their Teacher what was not true, is a
very evident proof to all candid judges that they were fully persuaded of
the truth of what they wrote, seeing they submitted to trials so numerous
and so severe, for the sake of Him whom they believed to be the Son of God.

CHAP. XI.

   In the next place, that He was betrayed by those whom He called His
disciples, is a circumstance which the Jew of Celsus learned from the
Gospels; calling the one Judas, however, "many disciples," that he might
seem to add force to the accusation. Nor did he trouble himself to take
note of all that is related concerning Judas; how this Judas, having come
to entertain opposite and conflicting opinions regarding his Master neither
opposed Him with his whole soul, nor yet with his whole soul preserved the
respect due by a pupil to his teacher. For be that betrayed Him gave to the
multitude that came to apprehend Jesus, a sign, saying, "Whomsoever I shall
kiss, it is he; seize ye him,"--retaining still some element of respect for
his Master: for unless he had done so, he would have betrayed Him, even
publicly, without any pretence of affection. This circumstance, therefore,
will satisfy all with regard to the purpose of Judas, that along with his
covetous disposition, and his wicked design to betray his Master, he had
still a feeling of a mixed character in his mind, produced in him by the
words of Jesus, which had the appearance (so to speak) of some remnant of
good. For it is related that, "when Judas, who betrayed Him, knew that He
was condemned, he repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to
the high priest and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed
the innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to
that;"[2]--and that, having thrown the money down in the temple, he
departed, and went and hanged himself. But if this covetous Judas, who also
stole the money placed in the bag for the relief of the poor, repented, and
brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
it is clear that the instructions of Jesus had been able to produce some
feeling of repentance in his mind, and were not altogether despised and
loathed by this traitor. Nay, the declaration, "I have sinned, in that I
have betrayed the innocent blood," was a public acknowledgment of his
crime. Observe, also, how exceedingly passionate[3] was the sorrow for his
sins that proceeded from that repentance, and which would not suffer him
any longer to live; and how, after he had cast the money down in the
temple, he withdrew, and went away and hanged himself: for he passed
sentence upon himself, showing what a power the teaching of Jesus had over
this sinner Judas, this thief and traitor, who could not always treat with
contempt what he had learned from Jesus. Will Celsus and his friends now
say that those proofs which show that the apostasy of Judas was not a
complete apostasy, even after his attempts against his Master, are
inventions, and that this alone is true, viz., that one of His disciples
betrayed Him; and will they add to the Scriptural account that he betrayed
Him also with his whole heart? To act in this spirit of hostility with the
same writings, both as to what we are to believe and what we are not to
believe, is absurd.[4] And if we must make a statement regarding Judas
which may overwhelm our opponents with shame, we would say that, in the
book of Psalms, the whole of the 108th contains a prophecy about Judas, the
beginning of which is this: "O God, hold not Thy peace before my praise;
for the mouth of the sinner, and the mouth of the crafty man, are opened
against me."[5] And it is predicted in this psalm, both that Judas
separated himself from the number of the apostles on account of his sins,
and that another was selected in his place; and this is shown by the words:
"And his bishopric let another take."[6] But suppose now that He had been
betrayed by some one of His disciples, who was possessed by a worse spirit
than Judas, and who had completely poured out, as it were, all the words
which he had heard from Jesus, what would this contribute to an accusation
against Jesus or the Christian religion? And how will this demonstrate its
doctrine to be false? We have replied in the preceding chapter to the
statements which follow this, showing that Jesus was not taken prisoner
when attempting to flee, but that He gave Himself up voluntarily for the
sake of us all. Whence it follows, that even if He were bound, He was bound
agreeably to His own will; thus teaching us the lesson that we should
undertake similar things for the sake of religion in no spirit of
unwillingness.

CHAP. XII.

   And the following appear to me to be childish assertions, viz., that
"no good general and leader of great multitudes was ever betrayed; nor even
a wicked captain of robbers and commander of very wicked men, who seemed to
be of any use to his associates; but Jesus, having been betrayed by his
subordinates, neither governed like a good general, nor, after deceiving
his disciples, produced in the minds of the victims of his deceit that
feeling of good-will which, so to speak, would be manifested towards a
brigand chief." Now one might find many accounts of generals who were
betrayed by their own soldiers, and of robber chiefs who were captured
through the instrumentality of those who did not keep their bargains with
them. But grant that no general or robber chief was ever betrayed, what
does that contribute to the establishment of the fact as a charge against
Jesus, that one of His disciples became His betrayer? And since Celsus
makes an ostentatious exhibition of philosophy, I would ask of him, If,
then, it was a charge against Plato, that Aristotle, after being his pupil
for twenty years, went away and assailed his doctrine of the immortality of
the soul, and styled the ideas of Plato the merest trifling?[1] And if I
were still in doubt, I would continue thus: Was Plato no longer mighty in
dialectics, nor able to defend his views, after Aristotle had taken his
departure; and, on that account, are the opinions of Plato false? Or may it
not be, that while Plato is true, as the pupils of his philosophy would
maintain, Aristotle was guilty of wickedness and ingratitude towards his
teacher? Nay, Chrysippus also, in many places of his writings, appears to
assail Cleanthes, introducing novel opinions opposed to his views, although
the latter had been his teacher when he was a young man, and began the
study of philosophy. Aristotle, indeed, is said to have been Plato's pupil
for twenty years, and no inconsiderable period was spent by Chrysippus in
the school of Cleanthes; while Judas did not remain so much as three years
with Jesus.[2] But from the narratives of the lives of philosophers we
might take many instances similar to those on which Celsus founds a charge
against Jesus on account of Judas. Even the Pythagoreans erected
cenotaphs[3] to those who, after betaking themselves to philosophy, fell
back again into their ignorant mode of life; and yet neither was Pythagoras
nor his followers, on that account, weak in argument and demonstration.

CHAP. XIII.

   This Jew of Celsus continues, after the above, in the following
fashion: "Although he could state many things regarding the events of the
life of Jesus which are true, and not like those which are recorded by the
disciples, he willingly omits them." What, then, are those true statements,
unlike the accounts in the Gospels, which the Jew of Celsus passes by
without mention? Or is he only employing what appears to be a figure of
speech,[4] in pretending to have something to say, while in reality he had
nothing to produce beyond the Gospel narrative which could impress the
hearer with a feeling of its truth, and furnish a clear ground of
accusation against Jesus and His doctrine? And he charges the disciples
with having invented the statement that Jesus foreknew and foretold all
that happened to Him; but the truth of this statement we shall establish,
although Celsus may not like it, by means of many other predictions uttered
by the Saviour, in which He foretold what would befall the Christians in
after generations. And who is there who would not be astonished at this
prediction: "Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for My sake,
for a testimony against them and the Gentiles;"[5] and at any others which
He may have delivered respecting the future persecution of His disciples?
For what system of opinions ever existed among men on account of which
others are punished, so that any one of the accusers of Jesus could say
that, foreseeing the impiety or falsity of his opinions to be the ground of
an accusation against them he thought that this would redound to his
credit, that he had so predicted regarding it long before? Now if any
deserve to be brought, on account of their opinions, before governors and
kings, what others are they, save the Epicureans, who altogether deny the
existence of providence? And also the Peripatetics, who say that prayers
are of no avail, and sacrifices offered as to the Divinity? But some one
will say that the Samaritans suffer persecution because of their religion.
In answer to whom we shall state that the Sicarians,[6] on account of the
practice of circumcision, as mutilating themselves contrary to the
established laws and the customs permitted to the Jews alone, are put to
death. And you never hear a judge inquiring whether a Sicarian who strives
to live according to this established religion of his will be released from
punishment if he apostatizes, but will be led away to death if he continues
firm; for the evidence of the circumcision is sufficient to ensure the
death of him who has undergone it. But Christians alone, according to the
prediction of their Saviour, "Ye shall be brought before governors and
kings for My sake," are urged up to their last breath by their judges to
deny Christianity, and to sacrifice according to the public customs; and
after the oath of abjuration, to return to their homes, and to live in
safety. And observe whether it is not with great authority that this
declaration is uttered: "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men,
him will I confess also before My Father who is in heaven. And whosoever
shall deny Me before men,"(1) etc. And go back with me in thought to Jesus
when He uttered these words, and see His predictions not yet accomplished.
Perhaps you will say, in a spirit of incredulity, that he is talking folly,
and speaking to no purpose, for his words will have no fulfilment; or,
being in doubt about assenting to his words, you will say, that if these
predictions be fulfilled, and the doctrine of Jesus be established, so that
governors and kings think of destroying those who acknowledge Jesus, then
we shall believe that he utters these prophecies as one who has received
great power from God to implant this doctrine among the human race, and as
believing that it will prevail. And who will not be filled with wonder,
when he goes back in thought to Him who then taught and said, "This Gospel
shall be preached throughout the whole world, for a testimony against them
and the Gentiles,"(2) and beholds, agreeably to His words, the Gospel of
Jesus Christ preached in the whole world under heaven to Greeks and
Barbarians, wise and foolish alike? For the word, spoken with power, has
gained the mastery over men of all sorts of nature, and it is impossible to
see any race of men which has escaped accepting the teaching of Jesus. But
let this Jew of Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that
happened to Him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the
whole Jewish worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it
from the hand of the Romans. For they will not maintain that the
acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching
contained in the Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His
disciples without the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works.(3) Now in
these it is recorded, that "when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed about
with armies, then shall ye know that the desolation thereof is nigh."(4)
But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and
enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and
lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed
Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of
Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on
account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

CHAP. XIV.

   Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what would
befall Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did in the
case of the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by means of
sorcery; for he might say that many persons by means of divination, either
by auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or nativities, have come to the
knowledge of what was to happen. But this concession he would not make, as
being too great a one; and although he somehow granted that Jesus worked
miracles, he thought to weaken the force of this by the charge of sorcery.
Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his
Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events
(although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as
if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded
to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding
foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the
doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine
power.

CHAP. XV.

   Celsus continues: "The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on
which to rely, devised the fiction that he foreknew everything before it
happened;" not observing, or not wishing to observe, the love of truth
which actuated the writers, who acknowledged that Jesus had told His
disciples beforehand, "All ye shall be offended because of Me this night,"-
-a statement which was fulfilled by their all being offended; and that He
predicted to Peter, "Before the cock crow, thou shall deny Me thrice,"
which was followed by Peter's threefold denial. Now if they had not been
lovers of truth, but, as Celsus supposes, inventors of fictions, they would
not have represented Peter as denying, nor His disciples as being offended.
For although these events actually happened, who could have proved that
they turned out in that manner? And yet, according to all probability,
these were matters which ought to have been passed over in silence by men
who wished to teach the readers of the Gospels to despise death for the
sake of confessing Christianity. But now, seeing that the word, by its
power, will gain the mastery over men, they related those facts which they
have done, and which, I know not how, were neither to do any harm to their
readers, nor to afford any pretext for denial.

CHAP. XVI.

   Exceedingly weak is his assertion, that "the disciples of Jesus wrote
such accounts regarding him, by way of extenuating the charges that told
against him: as if," he says, "any one were to say that a certain person
was a just man, and yet were to show that he was guilty of injustice; or
that he was pious, and yet had committed murder; or that he was immortal,
and yet was dead; subjoining to all these statements the remark that he had
foretold all these things." Now his illustrations are at once seen to be
inappropriate; for there is no absurdity in Him who had resolved that He
would become a living pattern to men, as to the manner in which they were
to regulate their lives, showing also how they ought to die for the sake of
their religion, apart altogether from the fact that His death on behalf of
men was a benefit to the whole world, as we proved in the preceding book.
He imagines, moreover, that the whole of the confession of the Saviour's
sufferings confirms his objection instead of weakening it. For he is not
acquainted either with the philosophical remarks of Paul,(1) or the
statements of the prophets, on this subject. And it escaped him that
certain heretics have declared that Jesus underwent His sufferings in
appearance, not in reality. For had he known, he would not have said: "For
ye do not even allege this, that he seemed to wicked men to suffer this
punishment, though not undergoing it in reality; but, on the contrary, ye
acknowledge that he openly suffered." But we do not view His sufferings as
having been merely in appearance, in order that His resurrection also may
not be a false, but a real event. For he who really died, actually arose,
if he did arise; whereas he who appeared only to have died, did not in
reality arise. But since the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a subject of
mockery to unbelievers, we shall quote the words of Plato,(2) that Erus the
son of Armenius rose from the funeral pile twelve days after he had been
laid upon it, and gave an account of what he had seen in Hades; and as we
are replying to unbelievers, it will not be altogether useless to refer in
this place to what Heraclides(3) relates respecting the woman who was
deprived of life. And many persons are recorded to have risen from their
tombs, not only on the day of their burial, but also on the day following.
What wonder is it, then, if in the case of One who performed many
marvellous things, both beyond the power of man and with such fulness of
evidence, that he who could not deny their performance, endeavoured to
calumniate them by comparing them to acts of sorcery, should have
manifested also in His death some greater display of divine power, so that
His soul, if it pleased, might leave its body, and having performed certain
offices out of it, might return again at pleasure? And such a declaration
is Jesus said to have made in the Gospel of John, when He said: "No man
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."(4) And perhaps it was on this
account that He hastened His departure from the body, that He might
preserve it, and that His legs might not be broken, as were those of the
robbers who were crucified with Him. "For the soldiers brake the legs of
the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him; but when they came
to Jesus, and saw that He was dead, they brake not His legs."(5) We have
accordingly answered the question," How is it credible that Jesus could
have predicted these things?" And with respect to this, "How could the dead
man be immortal?" let him who wishes to understand know, that it is not the
dead man who is immortal, but He who rose from the dead. So far, indeed,
was the dead man from being immortal, that even the Jesus before His
decease--the compound being, who was to suffer death--was not immortal.(6)
For no one is immortal who is destined to die; but he is immortal when he
shall no longer be subject to death. But "Christ, being raised from the
dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over Him;"(7) although
those may be unwilling to admit this who cannot understand how such things
should be said.

CHAP. XVII.

   Extremely foolish also is his remark, "What god, or spirit, or prudent
man would not, on foreseeing that such events were to befall him, avoid
them if he could; whereas he threw himself headlong into those things which
he knew beforehand were to happen?" And yet Socrates knew that he would die
after drinking the hemlock, and it was in his power, if he had allowed
himself to be persuaded by Crito, by escaping from prison, to avoid these
calamities; but nevertheless he decided, as it appeared to him consistent
with fight reason, that it was better for him to die as became a
philosopher, than to retain his life in a manner unbecoming one. Leonidas
also, the Lacedaemonian general, knowing that he was on the point of dying
with his followers at Thermopylae, did not make any effort to preserve his
life by disgraceful means but said to his companions, "Let us go to
breakfast, as we shall sup in Hades." And those who are interested in
collecting stories of this kind will find numbers of them. Now, where is
the wonder if Jesus, knowing all things that were to happen, did not avoid
them, but encountered what He foreknew; when Paul, His own disciple, having
heard what would befall him when he went up to Jerusalem, proceeded to face
the danger, reproaching those who were weeping around him, and endeavouring
to prevent him from going up to Jerusalem? Many also of our contemporaries,
knowing well that if they made a confession of Christianity they would be
put to death, but that if they denied it they would be liberated, and their
property restored, despised life, and voluntarily selected death for the
sake of their religion.

CHAP. XVIII.

   After this the Jew makes another silly remark, saying, "How is it that,
if Jesus pointed out beforehand both the traitor and the perjurer, they did
not fear him as a God, and cease, the one from his intended treason, and
the other from his perjury?" Here the learned Celsus did not see the
contradiction in his statement: for if Jesus foreknew events as a God, then
it was impossible for His foreknowledge to prove untrue; and therefore it
was impossible for him who was known to Him as going to betray Him not to
execute his purpose, nor for him who was rebuked as going to deny Him not
to have been guilty of that crime. For if it had been possible for the one
to abstain from the act of betrayal, and the other from that of denial, as
having been warned of the consequences of these actions beforehand, then
His words were no longer true, who predicted that the one would betray Him
and the other deny Him. For if He had foreknowledge of the traitor, He knew
the wickedness in which the treason originated, and this wickedness was by
no means taken away by the foreknowledge. And, again, if He had ascertained
that one would deny Him, He made that prediction from seeing the weakness
out of which that act of denial would arise, and yet this weakness was not
to be taken away thus at once, by the foreknowledge. But whence he derived
the statement, "that these persons betrayed and denied him without
manifesting any concern about him," I know not; for it was proved, with
respect to the traitor, that it is false to say that he betrayed his master
without an exhibition of anxiety regarding Him. And this was shown to be
equally true of him who denied Him; for he went out, after the denial, and
wept bitterly.

CHAP. XIX.

   Superficial also is his objection, that "it is always the case when a
man against whom a plot is formed, and who comes to the knowledge of it,
makes known to the conspirators that he is acquainted with their design,
that the latter are turned from their purpose, and keep upon their guard."
For many have continued to plot even against those who were acquainted with
their plans. And then, as if bringing his argument to a conclusion, he
says: "Not because these things were predicted did they come to pass, for
that is impossible; but since they have come to pass, their being predicted
is shown to be a falsehood: for it is altogether impossible that those who
heard beforehand of the discovery of their designs, should carry out their
plans of betrayal and denial!" But if his premises are overthrown, then his
conclusion also falls to the ground, viz., "that we are not to believe,
because these things were predicted, that they have come to pass." Now we
maintain that they not only came to pass as being possible, but also that,
because they came to pass, the fact of their being predicted is shown to be
true; for the truth regarding future events is judged of by results. It is
false, therefore, as asserted by him, that the prediction of these events
is proved to be untrue; and it is to no purpose that he says, "It is
altogether impossible for those who heard beforehand that their designs
were discovered, to carry out their plans of betrayal and denial."

CHAP. XX.

   Let us see how he continues after this: "These events," he says, "he
predicted as being a God, and the prediction must by all means come to
pass. God, therefore, who above all others ought to do good to men, and
especially to those of his own household, led on his own disciples and
prophets, with whom he was in the habit of eating and drinking, to such a
degree of wickedness, that they became impious and unholy men. Now, of a
truth, he who shared a man's table would not be guilty of conspiring
against him; but after banqueting with God, he became a conspirator. And,
what is still more absurd, God himself plotted against the members of his
own table, by converting them into traitors and villains!" Now, since you
wish me to answer even those charges of Celsus which seem to me
frivolous,(1) the following is our reply to such statements. Celsus
imagines that an event, predicted through foreknowledge, comes to pass
because it was predicted; but we do not grant this, maintaining that he who
foretold it was not the cause of its happening, because he foretold it
would happen; but the future event itself, which would have taken place
though not predicted, afforded the occasion to him, who was endowed with
foreknowledge, of foretelling its occurrence. Now, certainly this result is
present to the foreknowledge of him who predicts an event, when it is
possible that it may or may not happen, viz., that one or other of these
things will take place. For we do not assert that he who foreknows an
event, by secretly taking away the possibility of its happening or not,
makes any such declaration as this: "This shall infallibly happen, and it
is impossible that it can be otherwise." And this remark applies to all the
foreknowledge of events dependent upon ourselves, whether contained in the
sacred Scriptures or in the histories of the Greeks. Now, what is called by
logicians an" idle argument,"(2) which is a sophism, will be no sophism as
far as Celsus can help, but according to sound reasoning it is a sophism.
And that this may be seen, I shall take from the Scriptures the predictions
regarding Judas, or the foreknowledge of our Saviour regarding him as the
traitor; and from the Greek histories the oracle that was given to Laius,
conceding for the present its truth, since it does not affect the argument.
Now, in Ps. cviii., Judas is spoken of by the mouth of the Saviour, in
words beginning thus: "Hold not Thy peace, O God of my praise; for the
mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me."
Now, if you carefully observe the contents of the psalm, you will find
that, as it was foreknown that he would betray the Saviour, so also was he
considered to be himself the cause of the betrayal, and deserving, on
account of his wickedness, of the imprecations contained in the prophecy.
For let him suffer these things," because," says the psalmist, "he
remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man."
Wherefore it was possible for him to show mercy, and not to persecute him
whom he did persecute. But although he might have done these things, he did
not do them, but carried out the act of treason, so as to merit the curses
pronounced against him in the prophecy.

   And in answer to the Greeks we shall quote the following oracular
response to Laius, as recorded by the tragic poet, either in the exact
words of the oracle or in equivalent terms. Future events are thus made
known to him by the oracle: "Do not try to beget children against the will
of the gods. For if you beget a son, your son shall murder you; and all
your household shall wade in blood."(3) Now from this it is clear that it
was within the power of Laius not to try to beget children, for the oracle
would not have commanded an impossibility; and it was also in his power to
do the opposite, so that neither of these courses was compulsory. And the
consequence of his not guarding against the begetting of children was, that
he suffered from so doing the calamities described in the tragedies
relating to (Edipus and Jocasta and their sons. Now that which is called
the "idle argument," being a quibble, is such as might be applied, say in
the case of a sick man, with the view of sophistically preventing him from
employing a physician to promote his recovery; and it is something like
this: "If it is decreed that you should recover from your disease, you will
recover whether you call in a physician or not; but if it is decreed that
you should not recover, you will not recover whether you call in a
physician or no. But it is certainly decreed either that you should
recover, or that you should not recover; and therefore it is in vain that
you call in a physician." Now with this argument the following may be
wittily compared: "If it is decreed that you should beget children, you
will beget them, whether you have intercourse with a woman or not. But if
it is decreed that you should not beget children, you will not do so,
whether you have intercourse with a woman or no. Now, certainly, it is
decreed either that you should beget children or not; therefore it is in
vain that you have intercourse with a woman." For, as in the latter
instance, intercourse with a woman is not employed in vain, seeing it is an
utter impossibility for him who does not use it to  beget children; so, in
the former, if recovery from disease is to be accomplished by means of the
healing art, of necessity the physician is summoned, and it is therefore
false to say that "in vain do you call in a physician." We have brought
forward all these illustrations on account of the assertion of this learned
Celsus, that "being a God He predicted these things, and the predictions
must by all means come to pass." Now, if by "by all means" he means
"necessarily," we cannot admit this. For it was quite possible, also, that
they might not come to pass. But if he uses "by all means" in the sense of
"simple futurity,"(4) which nothing hinders from being true (although it
was possible that they might not happen), he does not at all touch my
argument; nor did it follow, from Jesus having predicted the acts of the
traitor or the perjurer, that it was the same thing with His being the
cause of such impious and unholy proceedings. For He who was amongst us,
and knew what was in man, seeing his evil disposition, and foreseeing what
he would attempt from his spirit of covetousness, and from his want of
stable ideas of duty towards his Master, along with many other
declarations, gave utterance to this also: "He that dippeth his hand with
Me in the dish, the same shall betray Me."(1)

CHAP. XXI.

   Observe also the superficiality and manifest falsity of such a
statement of Celsus, when he asserts "that he who was partaker of a man's
table would not conspire against him; and if he would not conspire against
a man, much less would he plot against a God after banqueting with him."
For who does not know that many persons, after partaking of the salt on the
table,(2) have entered into a conspiracy against their entertainers? The
whole of Greek and Barbarian history is full of such instances. And the
Iambic poet of Paros,(3) when upbraiding Lycambes with having violated
covenants confirmed by the salt of the table, says to him:--

   "But thou hast broken a mighty oath--that, viz., by the salt of the
table."

And they who are interested in historical learning, and who give themselves
wholly to it, to the neglect of other branches of knowledge more necessary
for the conduct of life,(4) can quote numerous instances, showing that they
who shared in the hospitality of others entered into conspiracies against
them.

CHAP. XXII.

   He adds to this, as if he had brought together an argument with
conclusive demonstrations and consequences, the following: "And, which is
still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his
table, by converting them into traitors and impious men." But how Jesus
could either conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or impious
men, it would be impossible for him to prove, save by means of such a
deduction as any one could refute with the greatest ease.

CHAP. XXIII.

   He continues in this strain: "If he had determined upon these things,
and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest that,
being a God, and submitting voluntarily, those things that were done
agreeably to his own decision were neither painful nor distressing." But he
did not observe that here he was at once contradicting himself. For if he
granted that He was chastised because He had determined upon these things,
and had submitted Himself to His Father, it is clear that He actually
suffered punishment, and it was impossible that what was inflicted on Him
by His chastisers should not be painful, because pain is an involuntary
thing. But if, because He was willing to suffer, His inflictions were
neither painful nor distressing, how did He grant that "He was chastised?"
He did not perceive that when Jesus had once, by His birth, assumed a body,
He assumed one which was capable both of suffering pains, and those
distresses incidental to humanity, if we are to understand by distresses
what no one voluntarily chooses. Since, therefore, He voluntarily assumed a
body, not wholly of a different nature from that of human flesh, so along
with His body He assumed also its sufferings and distresses, which it was
not in His power to avoid enduring, it being in the power of those who
inflicted them to send upon Him things distressing and painful. And in the
preceding pages we have already shown, that He would not have come into the
hands of men had He not so willed. But He did come, because He was willing
to come, and because it was manifest beforehand that His dying upon behalf
of men would be of advantage to the whole human race.

CHAP. XXIV.

   After this, wishing to prove that the occurrences which befell Him were
painful and distressing, and that it was impossible for Him, had He wished,
to render them otherwise, he proceeds: "Why does he mourn, and lament, and
pray to escape the fear of death, expressing himself in terms like these:
'O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me?'"(4) Now in these
words observe the malignity of Celsus, how not accepting the love of truth
which actuates the writers of the Gospels (who might have passed over in
silence those points which, as Celsus thinks, are censurable, but who did
not omit them for many reasons, which any one, in expounding the Gospel,
can give in their proper place), he brings an accusation against the Gospel
statement, grossly exaggerating the facts, and quoting what is not written
in the Gospels, seeing it is nowhere found that Jesus lamented. And he
changes the words in the expression, "Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from Me," and does not give what follows immediately after, which
manifests at once the ready obedience of Jesus to His Father, and His
greatness of mind, and which runs thus: "Nevertheless, not as I will, but
as Thou wilt."(1) Nay, even the cheerful obedience of Jesus to the will of
His Father in those things which He was condemned to suffer, exhibited in
the declaration, "If this cup cannot pass from Me except I drink it, Thy
will be done," he pretends not to have observed, acting here like those
wicked individuals who listen to the Holy Scriptures in a malignant spirit,
and "who talk wickedness with lofty head." For they appear to have heard
the declaration, "I kill,"(2) and they often make it to us a subject of
reproach; but the words, "I will make alive," they do not remember,--the
whole sentence showing that those who live amid public wickedness, and who
work wickedly, are put to death by God, and that a better life is infused
into them instead, even one which God will give to those who have died to
sin. And so also these men have heard the words, "I will smite;" but they
do not see these, "and I will heal," which are like the words of a
physician, who cuts bodies asunder, and inflicts severe wounds, in order to
extract from them substances that are injurious and prejudicial to health,
and who does not terminate his work with pains and lacerations, but by his
treatment restores the body to that state of soundness which he has in
view. Moreover, they have not heard the whole of the announcement, "For He
maketh sore, and again bindeth up;" but only this part, "He maketh sore."
So in like manner acts this Jew of Celsus who quotes the words, "O Father,
would that this cup might pass from Me;" but who does not add what follows,
and which exhibits the firmness of Jesus, and His preparedness for
suffering. But these matters, which afford great room for explanation from
the wisdom of God, and which may reasonably be pondered over(3) by those
whom Paul calls "perfect" when he said, "We speak wisdom among them who are
perfect,"(4) we pass by for the present, and shall speak for a little of
those matters which are useful for our present purpose.

CHAP. XXV.

   We have mentioned in the preceding pages that there are some of the
declarations of Jesus which refer to that Being in Him which was the
"first-born of every creature," such as, "I am the way, and the truth, and
the life," and such like; and others, again, which belong to that in Him
which is understood to be man, such as, "But now ye seek to kill Me, a man
that hath told you the truth which I have heard of the Father."(5) And
here, accordingly, he describes the element of weakness belonging to human
flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which existed in His humanity: the
element of weakness in the expression, "Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from Me;" the readiness of the spirit in this, "Nevertheless, not
as I will, but as Thou wilt." And since it is proper to observe the order
of our quotations, observe that, in the first place, there is mentioned
only the single instance, as one would say, indicating the weakness of the
flesh; and afterwards those other instances, greater in number, manifesting
the willingness of the spirit. For the expression, "Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from Me," is only one: whereas more numerous
are those others, viz., "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt;" and, "O My
Father, if this cup cannot pass from Me except I drink it, Thy will be
done." It is to be noted also, that the words are not, "let this cup depart
from Me;" but that the whole expression is marked by a tone of piety and
reverence, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." I know,
indeed, that there is another explanation of this passage to the following
effect:--The Saviour, foreseeing the sufferings which the Jewish people and
the city of Jerusalem were to undergo in requital of the wicked deeds which
the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon Him, from no other motive than that
of the purest philanthropy towards them, and from a desire that they might
escape the impending calamities, gave utterance to the prayer, "Father, if
it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." It is as if He had said,
"Because of My drinking this cup of punishment, the whole nation will be
forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be possible, that this cup may pass from
Me, in order that Thy portion, which was guilty of such crimes against Me,
may not be altogether deserted by Thee." But if, as Celsus would allege,
"nothing at that time was done to Jesus which was either painful or
distressing," how could men afterwards quote the example of Jesus as
enduring sufferings for the sake of religion, if He did not suffer what are
human sufferings, but only had the appearance of so doing?

CHAP. XXVI.

   This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having
invented these statements. saying to them: "Even although guilty of
falsehood, ye have not been able to give a colour of credibility to your
inventions." In answer to which we have to say, that there was an easy
method of concealing these occurrences,--that, viz., of not recording them
at all. For if the Gospels had not contained the accounts of these things,
who could have reproached us with Jesus having spoken such words during His
stay upon the earth? Celsus, indeed, did not see that it was an
inconsistency for the same persons both to be deceived regarding Jesus,
believing Him to be God, and the subject of prophecy, and to invent
fictions about Him, knowing manifestly that these statements were false. Of
a truth, therefore, they were not guilty of inventing untruths, but such
were their real impressions, and they recorded them truly; or else they
were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did not entertain these views,
and were not deceived when they acknowledged Him to be God.

CHAP. XXVII.

   After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like
persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have
corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and
fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might
be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the
Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I
think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against
the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the
Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that
there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others,
whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against
genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories,
and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.

CHAP. XXVIII.

   And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of reproach that
Christians should make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of
Christ's life, we have to say, in addition to what we have already advanced
upon this head, that it became  him to spare individuals, as he says, and
to expound the prophecies themselves, and after admitting the probability
of the Christian interpretation of them, to show how the use which they
make of them may be overturned.[1] For in this way he would not appear
hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds, and
particularly when he asserts that the "prophecies agree with ten thousand
other things more credibly than with Jesus." And he ought to have carefully
met this powerful argument of the Christians, as being the strongest which
they adduce, and to have demonstrated with regard to each particular
prophecy, that it can apply to other events with greater probability than
to Jesus. He did not, however, perceive that this was a plausible argument
to be advanced against the Christians only by one who was an opponent of
the prophetic writings; but Celsus has here put l in the mouth of a Jew an
objection which a Jew  would not have made. For a Jew will not admit that
the prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater
probability than to Jesus; but he will endeavour, after giving what appears
to him the meaning of each, to oppose the Christian interpretation, not
indeed by any means adducing convincing reasons, but only attempting to do
so.

CHAP. XXIX.

   In the preceding pages we have already spoken of this point, viz., the
prediction that there were to be two advents of Christ to the human race,
so that it is not necessary for us to reply to the objection, supposed to
be urged by a Jew, that "the prophets declare the coming one to be a mighty
potentate, Lord of all nations and armies." But it is in the spirit of a
Jew, I think, and in keeping with their bitter animosity, and baseless and
even improbable calumnies against Jesus, that he adds: "Nor did the
prophets predict such a pestilence."[2] For neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor
any other, can bring any argument to prove that a pestilence converts men
from the practice of evil to a life which is according to nature, and
distinguished by temperance and other virtues.

CHAP. XXX.

   This objection also is cast in our teeth by Celsus: "From such signs
and misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove him to
be God, and the Son of God." Now it was his duty to enumerate the alleged
misinterpretations, and to prove them to be such, and to show by reasoning
the meanness of the evidence, in order that the Christian, if any of his
objections should seem to be plausible, might  be able to answer and
confute his arguments. What he said, however, regarding Jesus, did indeed
come to pass, because He was a mighty potentate, although Celsus refuses to
see that it so happened, notwithstanding that the clearest evidence proves
it true of Jesus. "For as the sun," he says, "which enlightens all other
objects, first makes himself visible, so ought the Son of God to have
done." We would say in reply, that so He did; for righteousness has arisen
in His days, and there is abundance of peace, which took its commencement
at His birth, God preparing the nations for His teaching, that they might
be under one prince, the king of the Romans, and that it might not, owing
to the want of union among the nations, caused by the existence of many
kingdoms, be more difficult for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the
task enjoined upon them by their Master, when He said, "Go and teach all
nations." Moreover it is certain that Jesus was born in the reign of
Augustus, who, so to speak, fused together into one monarchy the many
populations of the earth. Now the existence of many kingdoms would have
been a hindrance to the spread of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the
entire world; not only for the reasons mentioned, but also on account of
the necessity of men everywhere engaging in war, and fighting on behalf of
their native country, which was the case before the times of Augustus, and
in periods still more remote, when necessity arose, as when the
Peloponnesians and Athenians warred against each other, and other nations
in like manner. How, then, was it possible for the Gospel doctrine of
peace, which does not permit men to take vengeance even upon enemies, to
prevail throughout the world, unless at the advent of Jesus[1] a milder
spirit had been everywhere introduced into the conduct of things?

CHAP. XXXI.

   He next charges the Christians with being "guilty of sophistical
reasoning, in saying that the Son of God is the Logos Himself." And he
thinks that he strengthens the accusation, because "when we declare the
Logos to be the Son of God, we do not present to view a pure and holy
Logos, but a most degraded man, who was punished by scourging and
crucifixion." Now, on this head we have briefly replied to the charges of
Celsus in the preceding pages, where Christ was shown to be the first-born
of all creation, who assumed a body and a human soul; and that God gave
commandment respecting the creation of such mighty things in the world, and
they were created; and that He who received the command was God the Logos.
And seeing it is a Jew who makes these statements in the work of Celsus, it
will not be out of place to quote the declaration, "He sent His word, and
healed them, and delivered them from their destruction,"[2]--a passage of
which we spoke a little ago. Now, although I have conferred with many Jews
who professed to be learned men, I never heard any one expressing his
approval of the statement that the Logos is the Son of God, as Celsus
declares they do, in putting into the mouth of the Jew such a declaration
as this: "If your Logos is the Son of God, we also give out assent to the
same."

CHAP. XXXII.

   We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant
man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our former
arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we ourselves
should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding fault with our
Lord's genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty
even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the
genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness,
but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a
braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to
Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against
the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the "framers of the
genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the
first man, and from the kings of the Jews." And he thinks that he makes a
notable charge when he adds, that "the carpenters wife could not have been
ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent." But what
has this to do with the question? Granted that she was not ignorant of her
descent, how does that affect the result? Suppose that she were ignorant,
how could her ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first
man, or could not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus
imagine that the poor must always be descended from ancestors who are poor,
or that kings are always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time
upon such an argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our
own days, some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of
wealth and distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung
from persons of no reputation.

CHAP. XXXIII.

   "But," continues Celsus, "what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a
God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion
what was designed against him?" Now to this question, although we are able
to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell
Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the
Gospel narratives, which state that "there was an earthquake, and that the
rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple
rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-
time, the sun failing to give light?"[1] But if Celsus believe the Gospel
accounts when he thinks that he can find in them matter of charge against
the Christians, and refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity
of Jesus, our answer to him is: "Sir,[2] either disbelieve all the Gospel
narratives, and then no longer imagine that you  can found charges upon
them; or, in yielding  your belief to their statements, look in admiration
on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to confer
benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces  the nobility
of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom God wills
are healed by His name.[3] And with regard to the eclipse in the time of
Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and
the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has
written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles."[4]

CHAP. XXXIV.

   This Jew of Celsus, ridiculing Jesus, as he imagines, is described as
being acquainted with the Bacchae of Euripides, in which Dionysus says:--

   "The divinity himself will liberate me whenever I wish."[5]

NOW the Jews are not much acquainted with Greek literature; but suppose
that there was a Jew so well versed in it (as to make such a quotation on
his part appropriate), how (does it follow) that Jesus could not liberate
Himself, because He did not do so? For let him believe from our own
Scriptures that Peter obtained his freedom after having been bound in
prison, an angel having loosed his chains; and that Paul, having been bound
in the stocks along with Silas in Philippi of Macedonia, was liberated by
divine power, when the gates of the prison were opened. But it is probable
that Celsus treats these accounts with ridicule, or that he never read
them; for he would probably say in reply, that there are certain sorcerers
who are able by incantations to unloose chains and to open doors, so that
he would liken the events related in our histories to the doings of
sorcerers. "But," he continues, "no calamity happened even to him who
condemned him, as there did to Pentheus, viz., madness or discerption."[6]
And yet he does not know that it was not so much Pilate that condemned Him
(who knew that "for envy the Jews had delivered Him"), as the Jewish
nation, which has been condemned by God, and rent in pieces, and dispersed
over the whole earth, in a degree far beyond what happened to Pentheus.
Moreover, why did he intentionally omit what is related of Pilate's wife,
who beheld a vision, and who was so moved by it as to send a message to her
husband, saying: "Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have
suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him?"[7] And again,
passing by in silence the proofs of the divinity of Jesus, Celsus
endeavours to cast reproach upon Him from the narratives in the Gospel,
referring to those who mocked Jesus, and put on Him the purple robe, and
the crown of thorns, and placed the reed in His hand. From what source now,
Celsus, did you derive these statements, save from the Gospel narratives?
And did you, accordingly, see that they were fit matters for reproach;
while they who recorded them did not think that you, and such as you, would
turn them into ridicule; but that others would receive from them an example
how to despise those who ridiculed and mocked Him on account of His
religion, who appropriately laid down His life for its sake? Admire rather
their love of truth, and that of the Being who bore these things
voluntarily for the sake of men, and who endured them with all constancy
and long-suffering. For it is not recorded that He uttered any lamentation,
or that after His condemnation He either did or uttered anything
unbecoming.

CHAP. XXXV.

   But in answer to this objection, "If not before, yet why now, at least,
does he not give some manifestation of his divinity, and free himself from
this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his
Father?" We have to reply, that it would be the same thing as if we were to
say to those among the Greeks who accept the doctrine of providence, and
who believe in portents, Why does God not punish those who insult the
Divinity, and subvert the doctrine of providence? For as the Greeks would
answer such objections, so would we, in the same, or a more effective
manner. There was not only a portent from heaven--the eclipse of the sun--
but also the other miracles, which show that the crucified One possessed
something that was divine, and greater than was possessed by the majority
of men.

CHAP. XXXVI.

   Celsus next says: "What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the
crucified Jesus? Is it  'such as flows in the bodies of the immortal
gods?'"[8] He puts this question in a spirit of mockery; but we shall show
from the serious narratives of the Gospels, although Celsus may not like
it, that it was no mythic and Homeric ichor which flowed from the body of
Jesus, but that, after His death, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced
His side, and there came there-out blood and water. And he that saw it bare
record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith the truth."[1]
Now, in other dead bodies the blood congeals, and pure water does not flow
forth; but the miraculous feature in the case of the dead body of Jesus
was, that around the dead body blood and water flowed forth from the side.
But if this Celsus, who, in order to find matter of accusation against
Jesus and the Christians, extracts from the Gospel even passages which are
incorrectly interpreted, but passes over in silence the evidences of the
divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let him read the
Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept watch
over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred, were
greatly afraid, saying, "This man was the Son of God."[2]

CHAP. XXXVII.

   After this, he who extracts from the Gospel narrative those statements
on which he thinks he can found an accusation, makes the vinegar and the
gall a subject of reproach to Jesus, saying that "he rushed with open
mouth[3] to drink of them, and could not endure his thirst as any ordinary
man frequently endures it." Now this matter admits of an explanation of a
peculiar and figurative kind; but on the present occasion, the statement
that the prophets predicted this very incident may be accepted as the more
common answer to the objection. For in the sixty-ninth Psalm there is
written, with reference to Christ: "And they gave me gall for my meat, and
in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,"[4] Now, let the Jews say who
it is that the prophetic writing represents as uttering these words; and
let them adduce from history one who received gall for his food, and to
whom vinegar was given as drink. Would they venture to assert that the
Christ whom they expect still to come might be placed in such
circumstances? Then we would say, What prevents the prediction from having
been already accomplished? For this very prediction was uttered many ages
before, and is sufficient, along with the other prophetic utterances, to
lead him who fairly examines the whole matter to the conclusion that Jesus
is He who was prophesied of as Christ, and as the Son of God.

CHAP. XXXVIII.

   The few next remarks: "You, O sincere believers,[5] find fault with us,
because we do not recognise this individual as God, nor agree with you that
he endured these (sufferings) for the benefit of mankind, in order that we
also might despise punishment." Now, in answer to this, we say that we
blame the Jews, who have been brought up under the training of the law and
the prophets (which foretell the coming of Christ), because they neither
refute the arguments which we lay before them to prove that He is the
Messiah,[6] adducing such refutation as a defence of their unbelief; nor
yet, while not offering any refutation, do they believe in Him who was the
subject of prophecy, and who clearly manifested through His disciples, even
after the period of His appearance in the flesh, that He underwent these
things for the benefit of mankind; having, as the object of His first
advent, not to condemn men and their actions[7] before He had instructed
them, and pointed out to them their duty,[8] nor to chastise the wicked and
save the good, but to disseminate His doctrine in an extraordinary[9]
manner, and with the evidence of divine power, among the whole human race,
as the prophets also have represented these things. And we blame them,
moreover, because they did not believe in Him who gave evidence of the
power that was in Him, but asserted that He cast out demons from the souls
of men through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and we blame them
because they slander the philanthropic character of Him, who overlooked not
only no city, but not even a single village in Judea, that He might
everywhere announce the kingdom of God, accusing Him of leading the
wandering life of a vagabond, and passing an anxious existence in a
disgraceful body. But there is no disgrace in enduring such labours for the
benefit of all those who may be able to understand Him.

CHAP. XXXIX.

   And how can the following assertion of this Jew of Celsus appear
anything else than a manifest falsehood, viz., that Jesus, "having gained
over no one during his life, not even his own disciples, underwent these
punishments and sufferings?" For from what other source sprang the envy
which was aroused against Him by the Jewish high priests, and elders, and
scribes, save from the fact that multitudes obeyed and followed Him, and
were led into the deserts not only by the persuasive[1] language of Him
whose words were always appropriate to His hearers, but who also by His
miracles made an impression on those who were not moved to belief by His
words? And is it not a manifest falsehood to say that "he did not gain over
even his own  disciples," who exhibited, indeed, at that time some symptoms
of human weakness arising from cowardly fear--for they had not yet been
disciplined to the exhibition of full courage--but who by no means
abandoned the judgments which they had formed regarding Him as the Christ?
For Peter, after his denial, perceiving to what a depth of wickedness he
had fallen, "went out and wept bitterly;" while the others, although
stricken with dismay on account of what had happened to Jesus (for they
still continued to admire Him), had, by His glorious appearance,[2] their
belief more firmly established than before that He was the Son of God.

CHAP. XL.

   It is, moreover, in a very unphilosophical spirit that Celsus imagines
our Lord's pre-eminence among men to consist, not in the preaching of
salvation and in a pure morality, but in acting contrary to the character
of that personality which He had taken upon Him, and in not dying, although
He had assumed mortality; or, if dying, yet at least not such a death as
might serve as a pattern to those who were to learn by that very act how to
die for the sake of religion, and to comport themselves boldly through its
help, before those who hold erroneous views on the subject of religion and
irreligion, and who regard religious men as altogether irreligious, but
imagine those to be most religious who err regarding God, and who apply to
everything rather than to God the ineradicable[3] idea of Him (which is
implanted in the human mind), and especially when they eagerly rush to
destroy those who have yielded themselves up with their whole soul (even
unto death), to the clear evidence of one God who is over all things.

CHAP. XLI.

   In the person of the Jew, Celsus continues to find fault with Jesus,
alleging that "he did not show himself to be pure from all evil." Let
Celsus state from what "evil" our Lord did not, show Himself to be pure. If
he means that, He was not pure from what is properly termed "evil," let him
clearly prove the existence of any wicked work in Him. But if he deems
poverty and the cross to be evils, and conspiracy on the part of wicked
men, then it is clear that he would say that evil had happened also to
Socrates, who was unable to show himself pure from evils. And how great
also the other band of poor men is among the Greeks, who have given
themselves to philosophical pursuits, and have voluntarily accepted a life
of poverty, is known to many among the Greeks from what is recorded of
Democritus, who allowed his property to become pasture for sheep; and of
Crates, who obtained his freedom by bestowing upon the Thebans the price
received for the sale of his possessions. Nay, even Diogenes himself, from
excessive poverty, came to live in a tub; and yet, in the opinion of no one
possessed of moderate understanding, was Diogenes on that account
considered to be in an evil (sinful) condition.

CHAP. XLII.

   But further, since Celsus will have it that "Jesus was not
irreproachable," let him instance any one of those who adhere to His
doctrine, who has recorded anything that could truly furnish ground of
reproach against Jesus; or if it be not from these that he derives his
matter of accusation against Him, let him say from what quarter he has
learned that which has induced him to say that He is not free from
reproach. Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by
which He conferred benefits upon his adherents. And we, continually seeing
fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this
Gospel of His should be preached  throughout the whole world, and that His
disciples should go among all nations and announce His doctrine; and,
moreover, that they should be brought before governors and kings on no
other account than because of His teaching; we are lost in wonder at Him,
and have our faith in Him daily confirmed. And I know not by what greater
or more convincing proofs Celsus would have Him confirm His predictions;
unless, indeed, as seems to be the case, not understanding that the Logos
had become the man Jesus, he would have Him to be subject to no human
weakness, nor to become an illustrious pattern to men of the manner in
which they ought to bear the calamities of life, although these appear to
Celsus to be most lamentable and disgraceful occurrences, seeing that he
regards labour[4] to be the greatest of evils, and pleasure the perfect
good,--a view accepted by none of those philosophers who admit the doctrine
of providence, and who allow that courage, and fortitude, and magnanimity
are virtues. Jesus, therefore, by His sufferings cast no discredit upon the
faith of which He was the object; but rather confirmed the same among those
who would approve of manly courage, and among those who were taught by Him
that what was truly and properly the happy life was not here below, but was
to be found in that which was called, according to His own words, the
"coming world;" whereas in what is called the "present world" life is a
calamity, or at least the first and greatest struggle of the soul.[1]

CHAP. XLIII.

   Celsus next addresses to us the following remark: "You will not, I
suppose, say of him, that, after failing to gain over those who were in
this world, he went to Hades to gain over those who were there." But
whether he like it or not, we assert that not only while Jesus was in the
body did He win over not a few persons merely, but so great a number, that
a conspiracy was formed against Him on account of the multitude of His
followers; but also, that when He became a soul, without the covering of
the body, He dwelt among those souls which were without bodily covering,
converting such of them as were willing to Himself, or those whom He saw,
for reasons known to Him alone, to be better adapted to such a course.[2]

CHAP. XLIV.

   Celsus in the next place says, with indescribable silliness: "If, after
inventing defences which are absurd, and by which ye were ridiculously
deluded, ye imagine that you really make a good defence, what prevents you
from regarding those other individuals who have been condemned, and have
died a miserable death, as greater and more divine messengers of heaven
(than Jesus)?" Now, that manifestly and clearly there is no similarity
between Jesus, who suffered what is described, and those who have died a
wretched death on account of their sorcery, or whatever else be the charge
against them, is patent to every one. For no one can point to any acts of a
sorcerer which turned away souls from the practice of the many sins which
prevail among men, and from the flood of wickedness (in the world).[3] But
since this Jew of Celsus compares Him to robbers, and says that "any
similarly shameless fellow might be able to say regarding even a robber and
murderer whom punishment had overtaken, that such an one was not a robber,
but a god, because he predicted to his fellow-robbers that he would suffer
such punishment as he actually did suffer," it might, in the first place,
be answered, that it is not because He predicted that He would suffer such
things that we entertain those opinions regarding Jesus which lead us to
have confidence in Him, as one who has come down to us from God. And, in
the second place, we assert that this very comparison[4] has been somehow
foretold in the Gospels; since God was numbered with the transgressors by
wicked men, who desired rather a "murderer" (one who for sedition and
murder had been cast into prison) to be released unto them, and Jesus to be
crucified, and who crucified Him between two robbers. Jesus, indeed, is
ever crucified with robbers among His genuine disciples and witnesses to
the truth, and suffers the same condemnation which they do among men. And
we say, that if those persons have any resemblance to robbers, who on
account of their piety towards God suffer all kinds of injury and death,
that they may keep it pure and unstained, according to the teaching of
Jesus, then it is clear also that Jesus, the author of such teaching, is
with good reason compared by Celsus to the captain of a band of robbers.
But neither was He who died for the common good of mankind, nor they who
suffered because of their religion, and alone of all men were persecuted
because of what appeared to them the right way of honouring God, put to
death in accordance with justice, nor was Jesus persecuted without the
charge of impiety being incurred by His persecutors.

CHAP. XLV.

   But observe the superficial nature of his argument respecting the
former disciples of Jesus, in which he says: "In the next place, those who
were his associates while alive, and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed
his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him subjected to punishment
and death, neither died with him, nor for him, nor were even induced to
regard punishment with contempt, but denied even that they were his
disciples, whereas now ye die along with him." And here he believes the sin
which was committed by the disciples while they were yet beginners and
imperfect, and which is recorded in the Gospels, to have been actually
committed, in order that he may have matter of accusation against the
Gospel; but their upright conduct after their transgression, when they
behaved with courage before the Jews, and suffered countless cruelties at
their hands, and at last suffered death for the doctrine of Jesus, he
passes by in silence. For he would neither hear the words of Jesus, when He
predicted to Peter, "When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy
hands,"[5] etc., to which the Scripture adds, "This spake He, signifying by
what death he should glorify God;" nor how James the brother of John--an
apostle, the brother of an apostle--was slain with the sword by Herod for
the doctrine of Christ; nor even the many instances of boldness displayed
by Peter and the other apostles because of the Gospel, and "how they went
forth from the presence of the Sanhedrim after being scourged, rejoicing
that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name,"[1] and so
surpassing many of the instances related by the Greeks of the fortitude and
courage of their philosophers. From the very beginning, then, this was
inculcated as a precept of Jesus among His hearers, which taught men to
despise the life which is eagerly sought after by the multitude, but to be
earnest in living the life which resembles that of God.

CHAP. XLVI.

   But how can this Jew of Celsus escape the charge of falsehood, when he
says that Jesus, "when on earth, gained over to himself only ten sailors
and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not even the whole
of these?" Now it is certain that the Jews themselves would admit that He
drew over not ten persons merely, nor a hundred, nor a thousand, but on one
occasion five thousand at once, and on another four thousand; and that He
attracted them to such a degree that they followed Him even into the
deserts, which alone could contain the assembled multitude of those who
believed in God through Jesus, and where He not only addressed to them
discourses, but also manifested to them His works. And now, through his
tautology, he compels us also to be tautological, since we are careful to
guard against being supposed to pass over any of the charges advanced by
him; and therefore, in reference to the matter before us following the
order of his treatise as we have it, be says: "Is it not the height of
absurdity to maintain, that if, while he himself was alive, he won over not
a single person to his views, after his death any who wish are able to gain
over such a multitude of individuals?" Whereas he ought to have said, in
consistency with truth, that if, after His death, not simply those who
will, but they who have the will and the power, can gain over so many
proselytes, how much more consonant to reason is it, that while He was
alive He should, through the greater power of His words and deeds, have won
over to Himself manifold greater numbers of adherents?

CHAP. XLVII.

   He represents, moreover, a statement of his own as if it were an answer
to one of his questions, in which be asks: "By what train of argument were
you led to regard him as the Son of God?" For he makes us answer that "we
were won over to him, because[2] we know that his punishment was undergone
to bring about the destruction Of the father of evil." Now we were won over
to His doctrine by innumerable other considerations, of which we have
stated only the smallest part in the preceding pages; but, if God permit,
we shall continue to enumerate them, not only while dealing with the so-
called True Discourse of Celsus, but also on many other occasions. And, as
if we said that we consider Him to be the Son of God because He suffered
punishment, he asks: "What then? have not many others, too, been punished,
and that not less disgracefully?" And here Celsus acts like the most
contemptible enemies of the Gospel, and like those who imagine that it
follows as a consequence from our history of the crucified Jesus, that we
should worship those who have undergone crucifixion!

CHAP. XLVIII.

   Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles which Jesus is recorded
to have performed, has already on several occasions spoken of them
slanderously as works of sorcery; and we also on several occasions have, to
the best of our ability, replied to his statements. And now he represents
us as saying that "we deemed Jesus to be the Son of God, because he healed
the lame and the blind." And he adds: "Moreover, as you assert, he raised
the dead." That He healed the lame and the blind, and that therefore we
hold Him to be the Christ and the Son of God, is manifest to us from what
is contained in the prophecies: "Then the eyes of the blind shall be
opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap
as an hart."[3] And that He also raised the dead, and that it is no fiction
of those who composed the Gospels, is shown by this, that if it had been a
fiction, many individuals would have been represented as having risen from
the dead, and these, too, such as had been many years in their graves. But
as it is no fiction, they are very easily counted of whom this is related
to have happened; viz., the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (of whom
I know not why He said, "She is not dead, but sleepeth," stating regarding
her something which does not apply to all who die); and the only son of the
widow, on whom He took compassion and raised him up, making the bearers of
the corpse to stand still; and the third instance, that of Lazarus, who had
been four days in the grave. Now, regarding these cases we would say to all
persons of candid mind, and especially to the Jew, that as there were many
lepers in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was healed save
Naaman the Syrian, and many widows in the days of Elijah the prophet, to
none of whom was Elijah sent save to Sarepta in Sidonia (for the widow
there had been deemed worthy by a divine decree of the miracle which was
wrought by the prophet in the matter of the bread); so also there were many
dead in the days of Jesus, but those only rose from the grave whom the
Logos knew to be fitted for a resurrection, in order that the works done by
the Lord might not be merely symbols of certain things, but that by the
very acts themselves He might gain over many to the marvellous doctrine of
the Gospel. I would say, moreover, that, agreeably to the promise of Jesus,
His disciples performed even greater works than these miracles of Jesus,
which were perceptible only to the senses.[1] For the eyes of those who are
blind in soul are ever opened; and the ears of those who were deaf to
virtuous words, listen readily to the doctrine of God, and of the blessed
life with Him; and many, too, who were lame in the feet of the "inner man,"
as Scripture calls it, having now been healed by the word, do not simply
leap, but leap as the hart, which is an animal hostile to serpents, and
stronger than all the poison of vipers. And these lame who have been
healed, receive from Jesus power to trample, with those feet in which they
were formerly lame, upon the serpents and scorpions of wickedness, and
generally upon all the power of the enemy; and though they tread upon it,
they sustain no injury, for they also have become stronger than the poison
of all evil and of demons.

CHAP. XLIX.

   Jesus, accordingly, in turning away the minds of His disciples, not
merely from giving heed to sorcerers in general, and those who profess in
any other manner to work miracles--for His disciples did not need to be so
warned--but from such as gave themselves out as the Christ of God, and who
tried by certain apparent[2] miracles to gain over to them the disciples of
Jesus, said in a certain passage: "Then, if any man shall say unto you, Lo,
here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders;
insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore, if they shall say unto you,
Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth; behold, he is in the secret
chambers, believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and
shineth even to the west, so also shall the coming of the Son of man
be."[3] And in another passage: "Many will say unto Me in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in Thy name, and by Thy name have cast
out demons, and done many wonderful works? And then will I say unto them,
Depart from Me, because ye are workers of iniquity."[4] But Celsus, wishing
to assimilate the miracles of Jesus to the works of human sorcery, says in
express terms as follows: "O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with
his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you
even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and
sorcerers; and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan. So
that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all
divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of
truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but
convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference,
to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other
sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted
wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness  against
himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a
divine nature, but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly
wicked men." Observe, now, whether Celsus is not clearly convicted of
slandering the Gospel by such statements, since what Jesus says regarding
those who are to work signs and wonders is different from what this Jew of
Celsus alleges it to be. For if Jesus had simply told His disciples to be
on their guard against those who professed to work miracles, without
declaring what they would give themselves out to be, then perhaps there
would have been some ground for his suspicion. But since those against whom
Jesus would have us to be on our guard give themselves out as the Christ--
which is not a claim put forth by sorcerers--and since He says that even
some who lead wicked lives will perform miracles in the name of Jesus, and
expel demons out of men, sorcery in the case of these individuals, or any
suspicion of such, is rather, if we may so speak, altogether banished, and
the divinity of Christ established, as well as the divine missions of His
disciples; seeing that it is possible that one who makes use of His name,
and who is wrought upon by some power, in some way unknown, to make the
pretence that he is the Christ, should seem to perform miracles like those
of Jesus, while others through His name should do works resembling those of
His genuine disciples.

   Paul, moreover, in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, shows in
what manner there will one day be revealed "the man of sin, the son of
perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,
or that is wor-shipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing
himself that he is God."[1] And again he says to the Thessalonians: "And
now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the
mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let,
until he be taken out of the way: and then shall that Wicked be revealed,
whom the Lord will consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy
with the brightness of His coming: even him, whose cunning is after the
working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with
all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish."[2] And in
assigning the reason why the man of sin is permitted to continue in
existence, he says: "Because they received not the love of the truth, that
they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who
believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."[3] Let any
one now say whether any of the statements in the Gospel, or in the writings
of the apostle, could give occasion for the suspicion that there is therein
contained any prediction of sorcery. Any one, moreover, who likes may find
the prophecy in Daniel respecting antichrist.[4] But Celsus falsities the
words of Jesus, since He did not say that others would come working similar
miracles to Himself, but who are wicked men and sorcerers, although Celsus
asserts that He uttered such words. For as the power of the Egyptian
magicians was not similar to the divinely-bestowed grace of Moses, but the
issue clearly proved that the acts of the former were the effect of magic,
while those of Moses were wrought by divine power; so the proceedings of
the antichrists, and of those who feign that they can work miracles as
being the disciples of Christ, are said to be lying signs and wonders,
prevailing with all deceivableness of unrighteousness among them that
perish; whereas the works of Christ and His disciples had for their fruit,
not deceit, but the salvation of human souls. And who would rationally
maintain that an improved moral life, which daily lessened the number of a
man's offences, could proceed from a system of deceit?

CHAP. LI.

   Celsus, indeed, evinced a slight knowledge of Scripture when he made
Jesus say, that it is "a certain Satan who contrives such devices;"
although he begs the question s when he asserts that "Jesus did not deny
that these works have in them nothing of divinity, but proceed from wicked
men," for he makes things which differ in kind to be the same. Now, as a
wolf is not of the same species as a dog, although it may appear to have
some resemblance in the figure of its body and in its voice, nor a common
wood-pigeon[6] the same as a dove,[7] so there is no resemblance between
what is done by the power of God and what is the effect of sorcery. And we
might further say, in answer to the calumnies of Celsus, Are those to be
regarded as miracles which are wrought through sorcery by wicked demons,
but those not which are performed by a nature that is holy and divine? and
does human life endure the worse, but never receive the better? Now it
appears to me that we must lay it down as a general principle, that as,
wherever anything that is evil would make itself to be of the same nature
with the good, there must by all means be something that is good opposed to
the evil; so also, in opposition to those things which are brought about by
sorcery, there must also of necessity be some things in human life which
are the result of divine power. And it follows from the same, that we must
either annihilate both, and assert that neither exists, or, assuming the
one, and particularly the evil, admit also the reality of the good. Now, if
one were to lay it down that works are wrought by means of sorcery, but
would not grant that there are also works which are the product of divine
power, he would seem to me to resemble him who should admit the existence
of sophisms and plausible arguments, which have the appearance of
establishing the truth, although really undermining it, while denying that
truth had anywhere a home among men, or a dialectic which differed from
sophistry. But if we once admit that it is consistent with the existence of
magic and sorcery (which derive their power from evil demons, who are
spell-bound by elaborate incantations, and become subject to sorcerers)
that some works must be found among men which proceed from a power that is
divine, why shall we not test those who profess to perform them by their
lives and morals, and the consequences of their miracles, viz., whether
they tend to the injury of men or to the reformation of conduct? What
minister of evil demons, e.g., can do such things? and by means of what
incantations and magic arts? And who, on the other hand, is it that, having
his soul and his spirit, and I imagine also his body, in a pure and holy
state, receives a divine spirit, and performs such works in order to
benefit men, and to lead them to believe on the true God? But if we must
once investigate (without being carded away by the miracles themselves) who
it is that performs them by help of a good, and who by help of an evil
power, so that we may neither slander all without discrimination, nor yet
admire and accept all as divine, will it not be manifest, from what
occurred in the times of Moses and Jesus, when entire nations were
established in consequence of their miracles, that these men wrought by
means of divine power what they are recorded to have performed? For
wickedness and sorcery would not have led a whole nation to rise not only
above idols and images erected by men, but also above all created things,
and to ascend to the uncreated origin of the God of the universe.

CHAP. LII.

   But since it is a Jew who makes these assertions in the treatise of
Celsus, we would say to him: Pray, friend, why do you believe the works
which are recorded in your writings as having been performed by God through
the instrumentality of Moses to be really divine, and endeavour to refute
those who slanderously assert that they were wrought by sorcery, like those
of the Egyptian magicians; while, in imitation of your Egyptian opponents,
you charge those which were done by Jesus, and which, you admit, were
actually performed, with not being divine? For if the final result, and the
founding of an entire nation by the miracles of Moses, manifestly
demonstrate that it was God who brought these things to pass in the time of
Moses the Hebrew lawgiver, why should not such rather be shown to be the
case with Jesus, who accomplished far greater works than those of Moses?
For the former took those of his own nation, the descendants of Abraham,
who had observed the rite of circumcision transmitted by tradition, and who
were careful observers of the Abrahamic usages, and led them out of Egypt,
enacting for them those laws which you believe to be divine; whereas the
latter ventured upon a greater undertaking, and superinduced upon the pre-
existing constitution, and upon ancestral customs and modes of life
agreeable to the existing laws, a constitution in conformity with the
Gospel. And as it was necessary, in order that Moses should find credit not
only among the elders, but the common people, that there should be
performed those miracles which he is recorded to have performed, why should
not Jesus also, in order that He may be believed on by those of the people
who had learned to ask for signs and wonders, need[1] to work such miracles
as, on account of their greater grandeur and divinity (in comparison with
those of Moses), were able to convert men from Jewish fables, and from the
human traditions which prevailed among them, and make them admit that He
who taught and did such things was greater than the: prophets? For how was
not He greater than the prophets, who was proclaimed by them to be the
Christ, and the Saviour of the human race?

CHAP. LIII.

   All the arguments, indeed, which this Jew of Celsus advances against
those who believe on Jesus, may, by parity of reasoning, be urged as ground
of accusation against Moses: so that there is no difference in asserting
that the sorcery practised by Jesus and that by Moses were similar to each
other,[2]--both of them, so far as the language of this Jew of Celsus is
concerned, being liable to the same charge; as, e.g., when this Jew says of
Christ, "But, O light and truth! Jesus with his own voice expressly
declares, as you yourselves have recorded, that there will appear among you
others also, who will perform miracles like mine, but who are wicked men
and sorcerers," some one, either Greek or Egyptian, or any other party who
disbelieved the Jew, might say respecting Moses, "But, O light and truth!
Moses with his own voice expressly declares, as ye also have recorded, that
there will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like
mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers. For it is written in your law,
'If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth
thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he
spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not
known, and let us serve them; thou shall not hearken to the words of  that
prophet, or dreamer of dreams,'" etc. Again, perverting the words of Jesus,
he says, "And he terms him who devises such things, one Satan;" while one,
applying this to Moses, might say, "And he terms him who devises such
things, a prophet who dreams." And as this Jew asserts regarding Jesus,
that "even he himself does not deny that these works have in them nothing
of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men;" so any one who disbelieves
the writings of Moses might say, quoting what has been already said, the
same thing, viz., that, "even Moses does not deny that these works have in
them nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men." And he will do
the same thing also with respect to this: "Being compelled by the force of
truth, Moses at the same time both exposed the doings of others, and
convicted himself of the same." And when the Jew says, "Is it not a
wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one is a God,
and the others sorcerers?" one might object to him, on the ground of those
words of Moses already quoted, "Is it not then a wretched inference from
the same acts, to conclude that the one is a prophet and servant of God,
and the others sorcerers?" But when, in addition to those comparisons which
I have already mentioned, Celsus, dwelling upon the subject, adduces this
also: "Why from these works should the others be accounted wicked, rather
than this man, seeing they have him as a witness against himself?"--we,
too, shall adduce the following, in addition to what has been already said:
"Why, from those passages in which Moses forbids us to believe those who
exhibit signs and wonders, ought we to consider such persons as wicked,
rather than Moses, because he calumniates some of them in respect of their
signs and wonders?" And urging more to the same effect, that he may appear
to strengthen his attempt, he says: "He himself acknowledged that these
were not the works of a divine nature, but were the inventions of certain
deceivers, and of very wicked men." Who, then, is "himself?" You O Jew, say
that it is Jesus; but he who accuses you as liable to the same charges,
will transfer this "himself" to the person of Moses.

CHAP. LIV.

   After this, forsooth, the Jew of Celsus, to keep up the character
assigned to the Jew from the beginning, in his address to those of his
countrymen who had become believers, says: "By what, then, were you induced
(to become his followers)? Was it because he foretold that after his death
he would rise again?" Now this question, like the others, can be retorted
upon Moses. For we might say to the Jew "By what, then, were you induced
(to become the follower of Moses)? Was it because he put on record the
following statement about his own death: 'And Moses, the servant of the
LORD died there, in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Loud;
and they buried him in Moab, near the house of Phogor: and no one knoweth
his sepulchre until this day?'"[1] For as the Jew casts discredit upon the
statement, that "Jesus foretold that after His death He would rise again,"
another person might make a similar assertion about Moses, and would say in
reply, that Moses also put on record (for the book of Deuteronomy is his
composition) the statement, that "no one knoweth his sepulchre until this
day," in order to magnify and enhance the importance of his place of
burial, as being unknown to mankind.

CHAP. LV.

   The Jew continues his address to those of his countrymen who are
converts, as follows: "Come now, let us grant to you that the prediction
was actually uttered. Yet how many others are there who practise such
juggling tricks, in order to deceive their simple hearers, and who make
gain by their deception?--as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis[2] in
Scythia, the slave of Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in Italy; and
with Rhampsinitus[3] in Egypt (the latter of whom, they say, played at dice
with Demeter in Hades, and returned to the upper world with a golden napkin
which he had received  from her as a gift); and also with Orpheus[4] among
the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Hercules[4] at Cape
Taenarus, and Theseus. But the question is, whether any one who was really
dead ever rose with a veritable body.[5] Or do you imagine the statements
of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while
you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in
the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake
and the darkness? That while alive he was of no assistance to himself, but
that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his punishment, and
how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this? A half-frantic[6]
woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged
in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a
peculiar state of mind,[7] or under the influence of a wandering
imagination bad formed to himself an appearance according to his own
wishes,[8] which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which
is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and
by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself."

   Now, since it is a Jew who makes these statements, we shall conduct the
defence of our Jesus as if we were replying to a Jew, still continuing the
comparison derived from the accounts regarding Moses, and saying to him:
"How many others are there who practise similar juggling tricks to those of
Moses, in order to deceive their silly hearers, and who make gain by their
deception?" Now this objection would be more appropriate in the mouth of
one who did not believe in Moses (as we might quote the instances of
Zamolxis and Pythagoras, who were engaged in such juggling tricks) than in
that of a Jew, who is not very learned in the histories of the Greeks. An
Egyptian, moreover, who did not believe the miracles of Moses, might
credibly adduce the instance of Rhampsinitus, saying that it was far more
credible that he had descended to Hades, and had played at dice with
Demeter, and that after stealing from her a golden napkin he exhibited it
as a sign of his having been in Hades, and of his having returned thence,
than that Moses should have recorded that he entered into the darkness,
where God was, and that he alone, above all others, drew near to God. For
the following is his statement: "Moses alone shall come near the LORD; but
the rest shall not come nigh."[1] We, then, who are the disciples of Jesus,
say to the Jew who urges these objections: "While assailing our belief in
Jesus, defend yourself, and answer the Egyptian and the Greek objectors:
what will you say to those charges which you brought against our Jesus, but
which also might be brought against Moses first? And if you should make a
vigorous effort to defend Moses, as indeed his history does admit of a
clear and powerful defence, you will unconsciously, in your support of
Moses, be an unwilling assistant in establishing the greater divinity of
Jesus."

CHAP. LVI.

   But since the Jew says that these histories of the alleged descent of
heroes to Hades, and of their return thence, are juggling impositions,[2]
maintaining that these heroes disappeared for a certain time, and secretly
withdrew themselves from the sight of all men, and gave themselves out
afterwards as having returned from Hades,--for such is the meaning which
his words seem to convey respecting the Odrysian Orpheus, and the
Thessalian Protesilaus, and the Taenarian Hercules, and Theseus also,--let
us endeavour to show that the account of Jesus being raised from the dead
cannot possibly be compared to these. For each one of the heroes
respectively mentioned might, had he wished, have secretly withdrawn
himself from the sight of men, and returned again, if so determined, to
those whom he had left; but seeing that Jesus was crucified before all the
Jews, and His body slain in the presence of His nation, how can they bring
themselves to say that He practised a similar deception[3] with those
heroes who are related to have gone down to Hades, and to have returned
thence? But we say that the following consideration might be adduced,
perhaps, as a defence of the public crucifixion of Jesus, especially in
connection with the existence of those stories of heroes who are supposed
to have been compelled[4] to descend to Hades: that if we were to suppose
Jesus to have died an obscure death, so that the fact of His decease was
not patent to the whole nation of the Jews, and afterwards to have actually
risen from the dead, there would, in such a case, have been ground for the
same suspicion entertained regarding the heroes being also entertained
regarding Himself. Probably, then, in addition to other causes for the
crucifixion of Jesus, this also may have contributed to His dying a
conspicuous death upon the cross, that no one might have it in his power to
say that He voluntarily withdrew from the sight of men, and seemed only to
die, without really doing so; but, appearing again, made a juggler's trick
s of the resurrection from the dead. But a clear and unmistakeable proof of
the fact I hold to be the undertaking of His disciples, who devoted
themselves to the teaching of a doctrine which was attended with danger to
human life,--a doctrine which they would not have taught with such courage
had they invented the resurrection of Jesus from the dead; and who also, at
the same time, not only prepared others to despise death, but were
themselves the first to manifest their disregard for its terrors.

CHAP. LVII.

   But observe whether this Jew of Celsus does not talk very blindly, in
saying that it is impossible for any one to rise from the dead with a
veritable body, his language being: "But this is the question, whether any
one who was really dead ever rose again with a veritable body?" Now a Jew
would not have uttered these words, who believed what is recorded in the
third and fourth books of Kings regarding little children, of whom the one
was raised up by Elijah,[6] and the other by Elisha.[7] And on this
account, too, I think it was that Jesus appeared to no other nation than
the Jews, who had become accustomed to miraculous occurrences; so that, by
comparing what they themselves believed with the works which were done by
Him, and with what was related of Him, they might confess that He, in
regard to whom greater things were done, and by whom mightier marvels were
performed, was greater than all those who preceded Him.

CHAP. LVIII.

   Further, after these Greek stories which the Jew adduced respecting
those who were guilty of juggling practices, [1] and who pretended to have
risen from the dead, he says to those Jews who are converts to
Christianity: "Do you imagine the statements of others not only to be
myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a
becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the
cross, when he breathed his last?" We reply to the Jew: "What you adduce as
myths, we regard also as such; but the statements of the Scriptures which
are common to us both, in which not you only, but we also, take pride, we
do not at all regard as myths. And therefore we accord our belief to those
who have therein related that some rose from the dead, as not being guilty
of imposition; and to Him especially there mentioned as having risen, who
both predicted the event Himself, and was the subject of prediction by
others. And His resurrection is more miraculous than that of the others in
this respect, that they were raised by the prophets Elijah and Elisha,
while He was raised by none of the prophets, but by His Father in heaven.
And therefore His resurrection also produced greater results than theirs.
For what great good has accrued to the world from the resurrection of the
children through the instrumentality of Elijah and Elisha, such as has re-
suited from the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus, accepted as an
article of belief, and as effected through the agency of divine power?"

CHAP. LIX.

   He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an
invention; [2] but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made
our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon,
who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour
suffered. [3] And he goes on to say, that "Jesus, while alive, was of no
assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the
marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by
nails." We ask him what he means by the expression, "was of no assistance
to himself?" For if he means it to refer to want of virtue, we reply that
He was of very great assistance. For He neither uttered nor committed
anything that was improper, but was truly "led as a sheep to the slaughter,
and was dumb as a lamb before the shearer;" [4] and the Gospel testifies
that He opened not His mouth. But if Celsus applies the expression to
things indifferent and corporeal, [5] (meaning that in such Jesus could
render no help to Himself,) we say that we have proved from the Gospels
that He went voluntarily to encounter His sufferings. Speaking next of the
statements in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the marks
of His punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks, "Who beheld
this?" And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene, who is related to
have seen Him, he replies, "A half-frantic woman, as ye state." And because
she is not the only one who is recorded to have seen the Saviour after His
resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew of Celsus calumniates
these statements also in adding, "And some one else of those engaged in the
same system of deception!"

CHAP. LX.

   In the next place, as if this were possible, viz., that the image of a
man who was dead could appear to another as if he were still living, he
adopts this opinion as an Epicurean, and says, "That some one having so
dreamed owing to a peculiar state of mind, or having, under the influence
of a perverted imagination, formed such an appearance as he himself
desired, reported that such had been seen; and this," he continues, "has
been the case with numberless individuals." But even if this statement of
his seems to have a considerable degree of force, it is nevertheless only
fitted to confirm a necessary doctrine, that the soul of the dead exists in
a separate state (from the body); and he who adopts such an opinion does
not believe without good reason in the immortality, or at least continued
existence, of the soul, as even Plato says in his treatise on the Soul that
shadowy phantoms of persons already dead have appeared to some around their
sepulchres. Now the phantoms which exist about the soul of the dead are
produced by some substance, and this substance is in the soul, which exists
apart in a body said to be of splendid appearance. [6] But Celsus,
unwilling to admit any such view, will have it that some dreamed a waking
dream, [7] and, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed to
themselves such an image as they desired. Now

it is not irrational to believe that a dream may take place while one is
asleep; but to suppose a waking vision in the case of those who are not
altogether out of their senses, and under the influence of delirium or
hypochondria, is incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the woman
"half-mad,"-- a statement which is not made by the history recording the
fact, but from which he took occasion to charge the occurrences with being
untrue.

CHAP. LXI.

   Jesus accordingly, as Celsus imagines, exhibited after His death only
the appearance of wounds received on the cross, and was not in reality so
wounded as He is described to have been; whereas, according to the teaching
of the Gospel--some portions of which Celsus arbitrarily accepts, in order
to find ground of accusation, and other parts of which he rejects-Jesus
called to Him one of His disciples who was sceptical, and who deemed the
miracle an impossibility. That individual had, indeed, expressed his belief
in the statement of the woman who said that she had seen Him, because he
did not think it impossible that the soul of a dead man could be seen; but
he did not yet consider the report to be true that He had been raised in a
body, which was the antitype of the former. [1] And therefore he did not
merely say, "Unless I see, I will not believe;" but he added, "Unless I put
my hand into the print of the nails, and lay my hands upon His side, I will
not believe." These words were spoken by Thomas, who deemed it possible
that the body of the soul [2] might be seen by the eye of sense, resembling
in all respects its former appearance,

   "Both in size, and in beauty of eyes, And in voice;"

and frequently, too,

   "Having, also, such garments around the person [3] (as when alive)."

Jesus accordingly, having called Thomas, said, "Reach hither thy finger,
and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side:
and be not faithless, but believing." [4]

CHAP. LXII.

   Now it followed from all the predictions which were uttered regarding
Him --amongst which was this prediction of the resurrection --and, from all
that was done by Him, and from all the events which befell Him, that this
event should be marvellous above all others. For it had been said
beforehand by the prophet in the person of Jesus: "My flesh shall rest in
hope, and Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, and wilt not suffer Thine
Holy One to see corruption." [5] And truly, after His resurrection, He
existed in a body intermediate, as it were, between the grossness of that
which He had before His sufferings, and the appearance of a soul uncovered
by such a body. And hence it was, that when His disciples were together,
and Thomas with them, there "came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in
the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach
hither thy finger," [6] etc. And in the Gospel of Luke also, while Simon
and Cleopas were conversing with each other respecting all that had
happened to them, Jesus "drew near, and went with them. And their eyes were
holden, that they should not know Him. And He said unto them, What manner
of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk?" And
when their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, then the Scripture says, in
express words, "And He vanished out of their sight." [7] And although
Celsus may wish to place what is told of Jesus, and of those who saw Him
after His resurrection, on the same level with imaginary appearances of a
different kind, and those who have invented such, yet to those who
institute a candid and intelligent examination, the events will appear only
the more miraculous.

CHAP. LXIII.

   After these points, Celsus proceeds to bring against the Gospel
narrative a charge which is not to be lightly passed over, saying that "if
Jesus desired to show that his power was really divine, he ought to have
appeared to those who had ill-treated him, and to him who had condemned
him, and to all men universally." For it appears to us also to be true,
according to the Gospel account, that He was not seen after His
resurrection in the same manner as He used formerly to show Himself--
publicly, and to all men. But it is recorded in the Acts, that "being seen
during forty days," He expounded to His disciples "the things pertaining to
the kingdom of God." [8] And in the Gospels [9] it is not stated that He
was always with them; but that on one occasion He appeared in their midst,
after eight days, when the doors were shut, and on another in some similar
fashion. And Paul also, in the concluding portions of the first Epistle to
the Corinthians, in reference to His not having publicly appeared as He did
in the period before He suffered, writes as follows: "For I delivered unto
you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of
the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once,
of whom the greater part remain unto the present time, but some are fallen
asleep. After that He was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last
of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." [10] I am
of opinion now that the statements in this passage contain some great and
wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp not merely of the great
multitude of ordinary believers, but even of those who are far advanced (in
Christian knowledge), and that in them the reason would be explained why He
did not show Himself, after His resurrection from the dead, in the same
manner as before that event. And in a treatise of this nature, composed in
answer to a work directed against the Christians and their faith, observe
whether we are able to adduce a few rational arguments out of a greater
number, and thus make an impression upon the hearers of this apology.

CHAP. LXIV.

   Although Jesus was only a single individual, He was nevertheless more
things than one, according to the different standpoint from which He might
be regarded; [1] nor was He seen in the same way by all who beheld Him.
Now, that He was more things than one, according to the varying point of
view, is clear from this statement, "I am the way, and the truth, and the
life;" and from this, "I am the bread;" and this, "I am the door," and
innumerable others. And that when seen He did not appear in like fashion to
all those who saw Him, but according to their several ability to receive
Him, will be clear to those who notice why, at the time when He was about
to be transfigured on the high mountain, He did not admit all His apostles
(to this sight), but only Peter, and James, and John, because they alone
were capable of beholding His glory on that occasion, and of observing the
glorified appearance of Moses and Elijah, and of listening to their
conversation, and to the voice from the heavenly cloud. I am of opinion,
too, that before He ascended the mountain where His disciples came to Him
alone, and where He taught them the beatitudes, when He was somewhere in
the lower part of the mountain, and when, as it became late, He healed
those who were brought to Him, freeing them from all sickness and disease,
He did not appear the same person to the sick, and to those who needed His
healing aid, as to those who were able by reason of their strength to go up
the mountain along with Him. Nay, even when He interpreted privately to His
own disciples the parables which were delivered to the multitudes without,
from whom the explanation was withheld, as they who heard them explained
were endowed with higher organs of hearing than they who heard them without
explanation, so was it altogether the same with the eyes of their soul,
and, I think, also with those of their body. [2] And the following
statement shows that He had not always the same appearance, viz., that
Judas, when about to betray Him, said to the multitudes who were setting
out with him, as not being acquainted with Him, "Whomsoever I shall kiss,
the same is He." [3] And I think that the Saviour Himself indicates the
same thing by the words: "I was daily with you, teaching in the temple, and
ye laid no hold on Me." [4] Entertaining, then, such exalted views
regarding Jesus, not only with respect to the Deity within, and which was
hidden from the view of the multitude, but with respect to the
transfiguration of His body, which took place when and to whom He would, we
say, that before Jesus had "put off the governments and powers," [5] and
while as yet He was not dead unto sin, all men were capable of seeing Him;
but that, when He had "put off the governments and powers," and had no
longer anything which was capable of being seen by the multitude, all who
had formerly seen Him were not now able to behold Him. And therefore,
sparing them, He did not show Himself to all after His resurrection from
the dead.

CHAP. LXV.

   And why do I say "to all?" For even with His own apostles and disciples
He was not perpetually present, nor did He constantly show Himself to them,
because they were not able without intermission [6] to receive His
divinity. For His deity was more resplendent after lie had finished the
economy [7] (of salvation): and this Peter, surnamed Cephas, the first-
fruits as it were of the apostles, was enabled to behold, and along with
him the twelve (Matthias having been substituted in room of Judas); and
after them He appeared to the five hundred brethren at once, and then to
James, and subsequently to all the others besides the twelve apostles,
perhaps to the seventy also, and lastly to Paul, as to one born out of due
time, and who knew well how to say, "Unto me, who am less than the least of
all saints, is this grace given;" and probably the expression "least of
all" has the same meaning with "one born out of due time." For as no one
could reasonably blame Jesus for not having admitted all His apostles to
the high mountain, but only the three already mentioned, on the occasion of
His transfiguration, when He was about to manifest the splendour which
appeared in His garments, and the glory of Moses and Elias talking with
Him, so none could reasonably object to the statements of the apostles, who
introduce the appearance of Jesus after His resurrection as having been
made not to all, but to those only whom He knew to have received eyes
capable of seeing His resurrection. I think, moreover, that the following
statement regarding Him has an apologetic value [1] in reference to our
subject, viz.: "For to this end Christ died, and rose again, that He might
be Lord both of the 'dead and living.'' [2] For observe, it is conveyed in
these words, that Jesus died that He might be Lord of the dead; and that He
rose again to be Lord not only of the dead, but also of the living. And the
apostle understands, undoubtedly, by the dead over whom Christ is to be
Lord, those who are so called in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, "For
the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible; " [3]
and by the living, those who are to be changed, and who are different from
the dead who are to be raised. And respecting the living the words are
these, "And we shall be changed ;" an expression which follows immediately
after the statement, "The dead shall be raised first." [4] Moreover, in the
first Epistle to the Thessalonians, describing the same change in different
words, he says, that they who sleep are not the same as those who are
alive; his language being, "I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren,
concerning them who are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which
have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died, and rose again, even so
them also that sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say unto
you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the
coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them that are asleep." [5] The
explanation which appeared to us to be appropriate to this passage, we gave
in the exegetical remarks which we have made on the first Epistle to the
Thessalonians.

CHAP. LXVI.

   And be not surprised if all the multitudes who have believed on Jesus
do not behold His resurrection, when Paul, writing to the Corinthians, can
say to them, as being incapable of receiving greater matters, "For I
determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified;" [6] which is the same as saying, "Hitherto ye were not able,
neither yet now are ye able, for ye are still carnal." [7] The Scripture,
therefore, doing everything by appointment of God, has recorded of Jesus,
that before His sufferings He appeared to all indifferently, but not
always; while after His sufferings He no longer appeared to all in the same
way, but with a certain discrimination which measured out to each his due.
And as it is related that "God appeared to Abraham," or to one of the
saints, and this "appearance" was not a thing of constant occurrence, but
took place at intervals, and not to all, so understand that the Son of God
appeared in the one case on the same principle that God appeared to the
latter. [8]

CHAP. LXVII.

   To the best of our ability, therefore, as in a treatise of this nature,
we have answered the objection, that "if Jesus had really wished to
manifest his divine power, he ought to have shown himself to those who ill-
treated him, and to the judge who condemned him, and to all without
reservation." There was, however, no obligation on Him to appear either to
the judge  who condemned Him, or to those who ill-treated Him. For Jesus
spared both the one and the other, that they might not be smitten with
blindness, as the men of Sodom were when they conspired against the beauty
of the angels entertained by Lot. And here is the account of the matter:
"But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them,
and shut to the door. And they smote the men who were at the door of the
house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves
to find the door." [9] Jesus, accordingly, wished to show that His power
was divine to each one who was capable of seeing it, and according to the
measure of His capability. And I do not suppose that He guarded against
being seen on any other ground than from a regard to the fitness of those
who were incapable of seeing Him. And it is in vain for Celsus to add, "For
he had no longer occasion to fear any man after his death, being, as you
say, a God; nor was he sent into the world at all for the purpose of being
hid." Yet He was sent into the world not only to become  known, but also to
be hid. For all that He was, was not known even to those to whom He was
known, but a certain part of Him remained concealed even from them; and to
some He was not known at all. And He opened the gates of light to those who
were the sons of darkness and of night, and had devoted themselves to
becoming the sons of light and of the day. For our Saviour Lord, like a
good physician, came rather to us who were full of sins, than to those who
were righteous.

CHAP. LXVIII.

   But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that, "if this at
least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought accordingly to
have at once disappeared from the cross." Now this seems to me to be like
the argument of those who oppose the doctrine of providence, and who
arrange things differently from what they are, and allege that the world
would be better if it were as they arrange it. Now, in those instances in
which their arrangement is a possible one, they are proved to make the
world, so far as depends upon them, worse by their arrangement than it
actually is; while in those cases in which they do not portray things worse
than they really are, they are shown to desire impossibilities; so that in
either case they are deserving of ridicule. And here, accordingly, that
them was no impossibility in His coming, as a being of diviner nature, in
order to disappear when He chose, is clear from the very nature of the
case; and is certain, moreover, from what is recorded of Him, in the
judgment of those who do not adopt certain portions merely of the narrative
that they may have ground for accusing Christianity, and who consider other
portions to be fiction. For it is related in St. Luke's Gospel, that Jesus
after His resurrection took bread, and blessed it, and breaking it,
distributed it to Simon and Cleopas; and when they had received the bread,
"their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, and He vanished out of their
sight," [1]

CHAP. LXIX.

   But we wish to show that His instantaneous bodily disappearance from
the cross was not better fitted to serve the purposes of the whole economy
of salvation (than His remaining upon it was). For the mere letter and
narrative of the events which happened to Jesus do not present the whole
view of the truth. For each one of them can be shown, to those who have an
intelligent apprehension of Scripture, to be a symbol of something else.
Accordingly, as His crucifixion contains a truth, represented in the words,
"I am crucified with Christ," and intimated also in these, "God forbid that
I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the
world is crucified to me, and I unto the world; " [2] and as His death was
necessary, because of the statement, "For in that He died, He died unto sin
once," [3] and this, "Being made conformable to His death,' [4] and this,
"For if we be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him:" [5] so also His
burial has an application to those who have been made conformable to His
death, who have been both crucified with Him, and have died with Him; as is
declared by Paul, "For we were buried with Him by baptism, and have also
risen with Him." [6] These matters, however, which relate to His burial,
and His sepulchre, and him who buried Him, we shall expound at greater
length on a more suitable occasion, when it will be our professed purpose
to treat of such things. But, for the present, it is sufficient to notice
the clean linen in which the pure body of Jesus was to be enwrapped, and
the new tomb which Joseph had hewn out of the rock, where "no one was yet
lying," [7] or, as John expresses it, "wherein was never man yet laid." [8]
And observe whether the harmony of the three evangelists here is not fitted
to make an impression: for they have thought it right to describe the tomb
as one that was "quarried or hewn out of the rock;" so that be who examines
the words of the narrative may see something worthy of consideration, both
in them and in the newness of the tomb,--a point mentioned by Matthew and
John [9]-- and in the statement of Luke and John, [10] that no one had ever
been interred therein before. For it became Him, who was unlike other dead
men (but who even in death manifested signs of life in the water and the
blood), and who was, so to speak, a new dead man, to be laid in a new and
clean tomb, in order that, as His birth was purer than any other (in
consequence of His being born, not in the way of ordinary generation, but
of a virgin), His burial also might have the purity symbolically indicated
in His body being deposited in a sepulchre which was new, not built of
stones gathered from various quarters, and having no natural unity, but
quarried and hewed out of one rock, united together in all its parts.
Regarding the explanation, however, of these points, and the method of
ascending from the narratives themselves to the things which they
symbolized, one might treat more profoundly, and in a manner more adapted
to their divine character, on a more suitable occasion, in a work expressly
devoted to such subjects. The literal narrative, however, one might thus
explain, viz., that it was appropriate for Him who had resolved to endure
suspension upon the cross, to maintain all the accompaniments of the
character He had assumed, in order that He who as a man had been put to
death, and who as a man had died, might also as a man be buried. But even
if it had been related in the Gospels, according to the view of Celsus,
that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross, he and other
unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would have
brought against it some such objection as this: "Why, pray, did he
disappear after he had been put upon the cross, and not disappear before he
suffered?" If, then, after learning from the Gospels that He did not at
once disappear from the cross, they imagine that they can find fault with
the narrative, because it did not invent, as they consider it ought to have
done, any such instantaneous disappearance, but gave a true account of the
matter, is it not reasonable that they should accord their faith also to
His resurrection, and should believe that He, according to His pleasure, on
one occasion, when the doors were shut, stood in the midst of His
disciples, and on another, after distributing bread to two of His
acquaintances, immediately disappeared from view, after He had spoken to
them certain words?

CHAP. LXX.

   But how is it that this Jew of Celsus could say that Jesus concealed
Himself? For his words regarding Him are these: "And who that is sent as a
messenger ever conceals himself when he ought to make known his message?"
Now, He did not conceal Himself, who said to those who sought to apprehend
Him, "I was daily teaching openly in the temple, and ye laid no hold upon
Me." Bat having once already answered this charge of Celsus, now again
repeated, we shall content ourselves with what we have formerly said. We
have answered, also, in the preceding pages, this objection, that "while he
was in the body, and no one believed upon him, he preached to ail without
intermission; but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself
after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman,
and to his own boon companions." [1] Now it is not true that He showed
Himself only to one woman; for it is stated in the Gospel according to
Matthew, that "in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the
first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the
sepulchre. And, behold, there had been a great earthquake: for the angel of
the Lord had descended from heaven, and come and rolled back the stone."
[2] And, shortly after, Matthew adds: "And, behold, Jesus met them" --
clearly meaning the afore-mentioned Marys -"saying, All hail. And they came
and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him." [3] And we answered, too,
the charge, that "while undergoing his punishment he was seen by all, but
after his resurrection only by one," when we offered our defence of the
fact that "He was not seen by all." And now we might say that His merely
human attributes were visible to all men but those which were divine in
their nature -- I speak of the attributes not as related, but as distinct
[4]-- were not capable of being received by all But observe here the
manifest contradiction into which Celsus falls. For having said, a little
before, that Jesus had appeared secretly to one woman and His own boon
companions, he immediately subjoins: "While undergoing his punishment he
was seen by all men, but after his resurrection by one, whereas the
opposite ought to have happened." And let us hear what he means by "ought
to have happened." The being seen by all men while undergoing His
punishment, but after His resurrection only by one individual, are
opposites. [5] Now, so far as his language conveys a meaning, he would have
that to take place which is both impossible and absurd, viz., that while
undergoing His punishment He should be seen only by one individual, but
after His resurrection by all men! or else how will you explain his words,
"The opposite ought to have happened?"

CHAP. LXXI.

   Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the words, "None knoweth
the Father but the Son;'' [6] and in these, "No man hath seen God at any
time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath
declared Him." [7] He, treating of Deity, stated to His true disciples the
doctrine regarding God; and we, discovering traces of such teaching in the
Scripture narratives, take occasion from such to aid our theological
conceptions, [8] hearing it declared in one passage, that "God is light,
and in Him there is no darkness at all;" [9] and in another, "God is a
Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
[10] But the purposes for which the Father sent Him are innumerable; and
these any one may ascertain who chooses, partly from the prophets who
prophesied of Him, and partly from the narratives of the evangelists. And
not a few things also will he learn from the apostles, and especially from
Paul. Moreover, those who are pious He leadeth to the light, and those who
sin He will punish, -- a circumstance which Celsus not observing, has
represented Him "as one who will lead the pious to the light, and who will
have mercy on others, whether they sin or repent." [11]

CHAP. LXXII.

   After the above statements, he continues: "If he wished to remain hid,
why was there heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of
God? And if he did not seek to remain concealed, why was he punished? or
why did he die?" Now, by such questions he thinks to convict the histories
of discrepancy, not observing that Jesus neither desired all things
regarding Himself to be known to all whom He happened to meet, nor yet all
things to be unknown. Accordingly, the voice from heaven which proclaimed
Him to be the Son of God, in the words, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased," (1) is not stated to have been audible to the multitudes,
as this Jew of Celsus supposed. The voice from the cloud on the high
mountain, moreover, was heard only by those who had gone up with Him. For
the divine voice is of such a nature, as to be heard only by those whom the
speaker wishes to hear it. And I maintain, that the voice of God which is
referred to, is neither air which has been struck, nor any concussion of
the air, nor anything else which is mentioned in treatises on the voice;
(2) and therefore it is heard by a better and more divine organ of hearing
than that of sense. And when the speaker will not have his voice to be
heard by all; he that has the finer ear hears the voice of God, while he
who has the ears of his soul deadened does not perceive that it is God who
speaks. These things I have mentioned because of his asking, "Why was there
heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God?" while with
respect to the query, "Why was he punished, if he wished to remain hid?"
what has been stated at greater length in the preceding pages on the
subject of His suffering may suffice.

CHAP. LXXIII.

   The Jew proceeds, after this, to state as a consequence what does not
follow from the premises; for it does not follow from "His having wished,
by the punishments which He underwent, to teach us also to despise death,"
that after His resurrection He should openly summon all men to the light,
and instruct them in the object of His coming. For He had formerly summoned
all men to the light in the words, "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (3) And the object of His
coming had been explained at great length in His discourses on the
beatitudes, and in the announcements which followed them, and in the
parables, and in His conversations with the scribes and Pharisees. And the
instruction afforded us by the Gospel of John, shows that  the eloquence of
Jesus consisted not in words, but in deeds; while it is manifest from the
Gospel narratives that His speech was "with power," on which account also
they marvelled at Him.

CHAP. LXXIV.

   In addition to all this, the Jew further says: "All these statements
are taken from your own books, in addition to which we need no other
witness; for ye fail upon your own swords." (4)

   Now we have proved that many foolish assertions, opposed to the
narratives of our Gospels, occur in the statements of the Jew, either with
respect to Jesus or ourselves. And I do not think that he has,shown that
"we fall upon our own swords;" but he only so imagines. And when the Jew
adds, in a general way, this to his former remarks: "O most high and
heavenly one! what God, on appearing to men, is received with incredulity?"
we must say to him, that according to the accounts in the law of Moses, God
is related to have visited the Hebrews in a most public manner, not only in
the signs and wonders performed in Egypt, and also in the passage of the
Red Sea, and in the pillar of fire and cloud of light, but also when the
Decalogue was announced to the whole people, and yet was received with
incredulity by those who saw these things: for had they believed what they
saw and heard, they would not have fashioned the calf, nor changed their
own glory into the likeness of a grass-eating calf; nor would they have
said to one another with reference to the calf, "These be thy gods, O
Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." (5) And observe
whether it is not entirely in keeping with the character of the same
people, who formerly refused to believe such wonders and such appearances
of divinity, throughout the whole period of wandering in the wilderness, as
they are recorded in the law of the Jews to have done, to refuse to be
convinced also, on occasion of the glorious advent of Jesus, by the mighty
words which were spoken by Him with authority, and the marvels which He
performed in the presence of all the people.

CHAP. LXXV.

   I think what has been stated is enough to convince any one that the
unbelief of the Jews with regard to Jesus was in keeping with what is
related of this people from the beginning. For I would say in reply to this
Jew of Celsus, when he asks, "What God that appeared among men is received
with incredulity, and that, too, when appearing to those who expect him? or
why, pray, is he not recognized by those who have been long looking for
him?" what answer friends, would you have us return to your questions?
Which class of miracles, in your judgment, do you regard as the greater?
Those which were wrought in Egypt and the wilderness, or those which we
declare that Jesus performed among you? For if the former are in your
opinion greater than the latter, does it not appear from this very fact to
be in conformity with the character of those who disbelieved the greater to
despise the less? And this is the opinion entertained with respect to our
accounts of the miracles of Jesus. But if those related of Jesus are
considered to be as great as those recorded of Moses, what strange thing
has come to pass among a nation which has manifested incredulity with
regard to the commencement of both dispensations? (2) For the beginning of
the legislation was in the time of Moses, in whose work are recorded the
sins of the unbelievers and wicked among you, while the commencement of our
legislation and second covenant is admitted to have been in the time of
Jesus. And by your unbelief of Jesus ye show that ye are the sons of those
who in the desert discredited the divine appearances; and thus what was
spoken by our Saviour will be applicable also to you who believed not on
Him: "Therefore ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers."
(3) And there is fulfilled among you also the prophecy which said: "Your
life shall hang in doubt before your eyes, and you will have no assurance
of your life." (4) For ye did not believe in the life which came to visit
the human race.

CHAP. LXXVI.

   Celsus, in adopting the character of a Jew, could not discover any
objections to be urged against the Gospel which might not be retorted on
him as liable to be brought also against the  law and the prophets. For he
censures Jesus in such words as the following: "He makes use of threats,
and reviles men on light grounds, when he says, 'Woe unto you,' and 'I tell
you beforehand.' For by such expressions he manifestly acknowledges his
inability to persuade; and this would not be the case with a God, or even a
prudent man." Observe, now, whether these charges do not manifestly recoil
upon the Jew. For in the writings of the law and the prophets God makes use
of threats and revilings, when He employs language of not less severity
than that found in the Gospel, such as the following expressions of Isaiah:
"Woe unto them that join house to house, and lay field to field;" (5) and,
"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning that they may follow
strong drink;" (6) and, "Woe unto them that draw their sins after them as
with a long rope;" (7) and, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
evil;" (8) and, "Woe unto those of you who are mighty to drink wine;" (9)
and innumerable other passages of the same kind. And does not the following
resemble the threats of which he speaks: "Ah sinful nation, a people laden
with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters?" (10) and
so on, to which he subjoins such threats as are equal in severity to those
which, he says, Jesus made use of. For is it not a threatening, and a great
one, which declares, "Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with
fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate,
as overthrown by strangers?" (11) And are there not revilings in Ezekiel
directed against the people, when the Lord says to the prophet, "Thou
dwellest in the midst of scorpions?'' (12) Were you serious, then, Celsus,
in representing the Jew as saying of Jesus, that "he makes use of threats
and revilings on slight grounds, when he employs the expressions, 'Woe unto
you,' and 'I tell you beforehand?'" Do you not see that the charges which
this Jew of yours brings against Jesus might be brought by him against God?
For the God who speaks in the prophetic writings is manifestly liable to
the same accusations, as Celsus regards them, of inability to persuade. I
might, moreover, say to this Jew, who thinks that he makes a good charge
against Jesus by such statements, that if he undertakes, in support of the
scriptural account, to defend the numerous curses recorded in the books of
Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we should make as good, or better, a defence of
the revilings and threatenings which are regarded as having been spoken by
Jesus. And as respects the law of Moses itself, we are in a position to
make a better defence of it than the Jew is, because we have been taught by
Jesus to have a more intelligent apprehension of the writings of the law.
Nay, if the Jew perceive the meaning of the prophetic Scriptures, he will
be able to show that it is for no light reason that God employs
threatenings and revilings, when He says, "Woe unto you," and "I tell you
beforehand." And how should God employ such expressions for the conversion
of men, which Celsus thinks that even a prudent man would not have recourse
to? But Christians, who know only one God--the same who spoke in the
prophets and in the Lord (Jesus)--can prove the reasonableness of those
threatenings and revilings, as Celsus considers and entitles them. And here
a few remarks shall be addressed to this Celsus, who professes both to be a
philosopher, and to be acquainted with all our system. How is it, friend,
when Hermes, in Homer, says to Odysseus,

   "Why, now, wretched man, do you come wandering alone over the mountain-
tops?" (1)

that you are satisfied with the answer, which explains that the Homeric
Hermes addresses such language to Odysseus to remind him of his duty, (2)
because it is characteristic of the Sirens to flatter and to say pleasing
things, around whom

   "Is a huge heap of bones," (3)

and who say,

   "Come hither, much landed Odysseus, great glory of the Greeks;" (4)

whereas, if our prophets and Jesus Himself, in order to turn their hearers
from evil, make use of such expressions as "Woe unto you," and what you
regard as revilings, there is no condescension in such language to the
circumstances of the hearers, nor any application of such words to them as
healing (5) medicine? Unless, indeed, you would have God, or one who
partakes of the divine nature, when conversing with men, to have regard to
His own nature alone, and to what is worthy of Himself, but to have no
regard to what is fitting to be brought before men who are under the
dispensation and leading of His word, and with each one of whom He is to
converse agreeably to his individual character. And is it not a ridiculous
assertion regarding Jesus, to say that He was unable to persuade men, when
you compare the state of matters not only among the Jews, who have many
such instances recorded in the prophecies, but also among the Greeks, among
whom all of those who have at-rained great reputation for their wisdom have
been unable to persuade those who conspired against them, or to induce
their judges or accusers to cease from evil, and to endeavour to attain to
virtue by the way of philosophy?

CHAP. LXXVII.

   After this the Jew remarks, manifestly in accordance with the Jewish
belief: "We certainly hope that there will be a bodily resurrection, and
that we shall enjoy an eternal life; and the example and archetype of this
will be He who is sent to us, and who will show that nothing is impossible
with God." We do not know, indeed, whether the Jew would say of the
expected I Christ, that He exhibits in Himself an example of the
resurrection; but let it be supposed that he both thinks and says so. We
shall give this  answer, then, to him who has told us that he  drew his
information from our own writings: "Did you read those writings, friend, in
which you think you discover matter of accusation against us, and not find
there the resurrection of Jesus, and the declaration that He was the first-
born from the dead? Or because you will not allow such things to have been
recorded, were they not actually recorded?" But as the Jew still admits the
resurrection of the body, I do not consider the present a suitable time to
discuss the subject with one who both believes and says that there is a
bodily resurrection, whether he has an articulate (6) understanding of such
a topic, and is able to plead well on its behalf, (7) or not, but has only
given his assent to it as being of a legendary character. (8) Let the
above, then, be our reply to this Jew of Celsus. And when he adds, "Where,
then, is he, that we may see him and believe upon him?" we answer: Where is
He now who spoke in the prophecies, and who wrought miracles, that we  may
see and believe that He is part of God? Are you to be allowed to meet the
objection, that God does not perpetually show Himself to the Hebrew nation,
while we are not to be permitted the same defence with regard to Jesus, who
has both once risen Himself, and led His disciples to believe in His
resurrection, and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth, that they show
to all men by their sufferings how they are able to laugh at all the
troubles of life, beholding the life eternal and the resurrection clearly
demonstrated to them both in word and deed?

CHAP. LXXVIII.

   The Jew continues: "Did Jesus come into the world for this purpose,
that we should not believe him?" To which we immediately answer, that He
did not come with the object of producing incredulity among the Jews; but
knowing beforehand that such would be the result, He foretold it, and made
use of their unbelief for the calling of the Gentiles. For through their
sin salvation came to the Gentiles, respecting whom the Christ who speaks
in the prophecies says, "A people whom I did not know became subject to Me:
they were obedient to the hearing of My ear;" (9) and, "I was found of them
who sought Me not; I became manifest to those who inquired not after Me."
(1) It is certain, moreover, that the Jews were punished even in this
present life, after treating Jesus in the manner in which they did. And let
the Jews assert what they will when we charge them with guilt, and say, "Is
not the providence and goodness of God most wonderfully displayed in your
punishment, and in your being deprived of Jerusalem, and of the sanctuary,
and of your splendid worship?" For whatever they may say in reply with
respect to the providence of God, we shall be able more effectually to
answer it by remarking, that the providence of God was wonderfully
manifested in using the transgression of that people for the purpose of
calling into the kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ, those from among the
Gentiles who were strangers to the covenant and aliens to the promises. And
these things were foretold by the prophets, who said that, on account of
the transgressions of the Hebrew nation, God would make choice, not of a
nation, but of individuals chosen from all lands; (2) and, having selected
the foolish things of the world, would cause an ignorant nation to become
acquainted with the divine teaching, the kingdom of God being taken from
the one and given to the other. And out of a larger number it is sufficient
on the present occasion to adduce the prediction from the song in
Deuteronomy regarding the calling of the Gentiles, which is as follows,
being spoken in the person of the Lord "They have moved Me to jealousy with
those who are not gods; they have provoked Me to anger with their idols:
and I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people; I will
provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." (3)

   The conclusion of all these arguments regarding Jesus is thus stated by
the Jew: "He was therefore a man, and of such a nature, as the truth itself
proves, and reason demonstrates him to be." I do not know, however, whether
a man who had the courage to spread throughout the entire world his
doctrine of religious worship and teaching, (4) could accomplish what he
wished without the divine assistance, and could rise superior to all who
withstood the progress of his doctrine--kings and rulers, and the Roman
senate, and governors in all places, and the common people. And how could
the nature of a man possessed of no inherent excellence con-yen so vast a
multitude? For it would not be wonderful if it were only the wise who were
so convened; but it is the most irrational of men, and those devoted to
their passions, and who, by reason of their irrationality, change with the
greater difficulty so as to adopt a more temperate course of life. And yet
it is because Christ was the power of God and the wisdom of the Father that
He accomplished, and still accomplishes, such results, although neither the
Jews nor Greeks who disbelieve His word will so admit. And therefore we
shall not cease to believe in God, according to the precepts of Jesus
Christ, and to seek to convert those who are blind on the subject of
religion, although it is they who are truly blind themselves that charge us
with blindness: and they, whether Jews or Greeks, who lead astray those
that follow them, accuse us of seducing men--a good seduction, truly!--that
they may become temperate instead of dissolute, or at least may make
advances to temperance; may become just instead of unjust, or at least may
tend to become so; prudent instead of foolish, or be on the way to become
such; and instead of cowardice, meanness, and timidity, may exhibit the
virtues of fortitude and courage, especially displayed in the struggles
undergone for the sake of their religion towards God, the Creator of all
things. Jesus Christ therefore came announced beforehand, not by one
prophet, but by all; and it was a proof of the ignorance of Celsus, to
represent a Jew as saying that one prophet only had predicted the advent of
Christ. But as this Jew of Celsus, after being thus introduced, asserting
that these things were indeed in conformity with his own law, has somewhere
here ended his discourse, with a mention of other matters not worthy of
remembrance, I too shall here terminate this second book of my answer to
his treatise. But if God permit, and the power of Christ abide in my soul,
I shall endeavour in the third book to deal with the subsequent statements
of Celsus.

ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS.

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.

CHAP. II.

   But let Celsus, and those who assent to his charges, tell us whether it
is at all like "an ass's shadow," that the Jewish prophets should have
predicted the birth-place of Him who was to be the ruler of those who had
lived righteous lives, and who are called the "heritage" of God; (6) and
that Emmanuel should be conceived by a virgin; and that such signs and
wonders should be performed by Him who was the subject of prophecy; and
that His word should have such speedy course, that the voice of His
apostles should go forth into all the earth; and that He should undergo
certain sufferings after His condemnation by the Jews; and that He should
rise again from the dead. For was it by chance (7) that the prophets made
these announcements, with no persuasion of the truth in their minds, (8)
moving them not only to speak, but to deem their announcements worthy of
being committed to writing? And did so great a nation as that of the Jews,
who had long ago received a country of their own wherein to dwell,
recognise certain men as prophets, and reject others as utterers of false
predictions, without any conviction of the soundness of the distinction?
(8) And was there no motive which induced them to class with the books of
Moses, which were held as sacred, the words of those persons who were
afterwards deemed to be prophets? And can those who charge the Jews and
Christians with folly, show us how the Jewish nation could have continued
to subsist, had there existed among them no promise of the knowledge of
future events? and how, while each of the surrounding nations believed,
agreeably to their ancient institutions, that they received oracles and
predictions from those whom they accounted gods, this people alone, who
were taught to view with contempt all those who were considered gods by the
heathen, as not being gods, but demons, according to the declaration of the
prophets, "For all the gods of the nations are demons," (1) had among them
no one who professed to be a prophet, and who could restrain such as, from
a desire to know the future, were ready to desert I to the demons (1) of
other nations? Judge, then, whether it were not a necessity, that as the
whole nation had been taught to despise the deities of other lands, they
should have had an abundance of prophets, who made known events which were
of far greater importance in themselves, (3) and which surpassed the
oracles of all other countries.

CHAP. III.

   In the next place, miracles were performed in all countries, or at
least in many of them, as Celsus himself admits, instancing the case of
AEsculapius, who conferred benefits on many, and who foretold future events
to entire cities, which were dedicated to him, such as Tricca, and
Epidaurus, and Cos, and Pergamus; and along with AEsculapius he mentions
Aristeas of Proconnesus, and a certain Clazomenian, and Cleomedes of
Astypalaea. But among the Jews alone, who say they are dedicated to the God
of all things, there was wrought no miracle or sign which might help to
confirm their faith in the Creator of all things, and strengthen their hope
of another and better life! But how can  they imagine such a state of
things? For they would immediately have gone over to the worship of those
demons which gave oracles and performed cures, and deserted the God who was
believed, as far as words went, (4) to assist them, but who never
manifested to them His visible presence. But if this result has not taken
place, and if, on the contrary, they have suffered countless calamities
rather than renounce Judaism and their law, and have been cruelly treated,
at one time in Assyria, at another in Persia, and at another under
Antiochus, is it not in keeping with the probabilities of the case s for
those to suppose who do not yield their belief to their miraculous
histories and prophecies, that the events in question could not be
inventions, but that a certain divine Spirit being in the holy souls of the
prophets, as of men who underwent any labour for the cause of virtue, did
move them to prophesy some things relating to their contemporaries, and
others to their posterity, but chiefly regarding a certain personage who
was to come as a Saviour to the human race?

   And if the above be the state of the case, how do Jews and Christians
search after "the shadow of an ass," in seeking to ascertain from those
prophecies which they believe in common, whether He who was foretold has
come, or has not yet arrived, and is still an object of expectation? But
even suppose (6) it be granted to Celsus that it was not Jesus who was
announced by the prophets, then, even on such a hypothesis, the
investigation of the sense of the prophetic writings is no search after
"the shadow of an ass," if He who was spoken of can be clearly pointed out,
and it can be shown both what sort of person He was predicted to be, and
what He was to do, and, if possible, when He was to arrive. But in the
preceding pages we have already spoken on the point of Jesus being the
individual who was foretold to be the Christ, quoting a few prophecies out
of a larger number. Neither Jews nor Christians, then, are wrong in
assuming that the prophets spoke under divine influence; (7) but they are
in error who form erroneous opinions respecting Him who was expected by the
prophets to come, and whose person and character were made known in their
"true discourses."

CHAP. V.

   Immediately after these points, Celsus, imagining that the Jews are
Egyptians by descent, and had abandoned Egypt, after revolting against the
Egyptian state, and despising the customs of that people in matters of
worship, says that "they suffered from the adherents of Jesus, who believed
in Him as the Christ, the same treatment which they had inflicted upon the
Egyptians; and that the cause which led to the new state of things s in
either instance was rebellion against the state." Now let us observe what
Celsus has here done. The ancient Egyptians, after inflicting many
cruelties upon the Hebrew race, who had settled in Egypt owing to a famine
which had broken out in Judea, suffered, in consequence of their injustice
to strangers and suppliants, that punishment which divine Providence had
decreed was to fall on the whole nation for having combined against an
entire people, who had been their guests, and who had done them no harm;
and after being smitten by plagues from God, they allowed them, with
difficulty, and after a brief period, to go wherever they liked, as being
unjustly detained in slavery. Because, then, they were a selfish people,
who hon-outer those who were in any degree related to them far more than
they did strangers of better lives, there is not an accusation which they
have omitted to bring against Moses and the Hebrews,--not altogether
denying, indeed, the miracles and wonders done by him, but alleging that
they were wrought by sorcery, and not by divine power. Moses, however, not
as a magician, but as a devout man, and one devoted to the God of all
things, and a partaker in the divine Spirit, both enacted laws for the
Hebrews, according to the suggestions of the Divinity, and recorded events
as they happened with perfect fidelity.

CHAP. VI.

   Celsus, therefore, not investigating in a spirit of impartiality the
facts, which are related by the Egyptians in one way, and by the Hebrews in
another, but being bewitched, as it were,[1] in favour of the former,
accepted as true the statements of those who had oppressed the strangers,
and declared that the Hebrews, who had been unjustly treated, had departed
from Egypt after revolting against the Egyptians,--not observing how
impossible it was for so great a multitude of rebellious Egyptians to
become a nation, which, dating its origin from the said revolt, should
change its language at the time of its rebellion, so that those who up to
that time made use of the Egyptian tongue, should completely adopt, all at
once, the language of the Hebrews! Let it be granted, however, according to
his supposition, that on abandoning Egypt they did conceive a hatred also
of their mother tongue,[2] how did it happen that after so doing they did
not rather adopt the Syrian or Phoenician language, instead of preferring
the Hebrew, which is different from both? But reason seems to me to
demonstrate that the statement is false, which makes those who were
Egyptians by race to have revolted against Egyptians, and to have left the
country, and to have proceeded to Palestine, and occupied the land now
called Judea. For Hebrew was the language of their fathers before their
descent into Egypt; and the Hebrew letters, employed by Moses in writing
those five books which are deemed sacred by the Jews, were different from
those of the Egyptians.

CHAP. VII.

   In like manner, as the statement is false "that the Hebrews, being
(originally) Egyptians, dated  the commencement (of their political
existence) from the time of their rebellion," so also is this, "that in the
days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and
became His followers;" for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are
able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of
rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian
commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the
Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defence of the members of their
families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have
altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere
teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any
one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as
His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any
individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin
to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not
to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion
to resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into
things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt., that it is a miracle
if a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had
been a gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, "As they went
forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not understand."[3]

CHAP. VIII.

   In the following way, also, we may conclude that they who came out of
Egypt with Moses were not Egyptians; for if they had been Egyptians, their
names also would be Egyptian, because in every language the designations
(of persons and things) are kindred to the language.[4] But if it is
certain, from the names being Hebrew, that the people were not Egyptians,--
and the Scriptures are full of Hebrew names, and these bestowed, too, upon
their children while they were in Egypt,--it is clear that the Egyptian
account is false, which asserts that they were Egyptians, and went forth
from Egypt with Moses. Now it is absolutely certain[5] that, being
descended, as the Mosaic history records, from Hebrew ancestors, they
employed a language from which they also took the names which they
conferred upon their children. But with regard to the Christians, because
they were taught not to avenge themselves upon their enemies (and have thus
observed laws of a mild and philanthropic character); and because they
would not, although able, have made war even if they had received authority
to do so,--they have obtained this reward from God, that He has always
warred in their behalf, and on certain occasions has restrained those who
rose up against them and desired to destroy them. For in order to remind
others, that by seeing a few engaged in a struggle for their religion, they
also might be better fitted to despise death, some, on special occasions,
and these individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured death for
the sake of Christianity,--God not permitting the whole nation to be
exterminated, but desiring that it should continue, and that the whole
world should be filled with this salutary and religious doctrine.[1] And
again, on the other hand, that those who were of weaker minds might recover
their courage and rise superior to the thought of death, God interposed His
providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an act of His will alone
all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither kings, nor
rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond a
certain point. Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus, "that
a revolt was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish state, and
subsequently of Christianity."

CHAP. IX.

   But since he is manifestly guilty of falsehood in the statements which
follow, let us examine his assertion when he says, "If all men wished to
become Christians, the latter would not desire such a result." Now that the
above statement is false is clear from this, that Christians do not
neglect, as far as in them lies, to take measures to disseminate their
doctrine throughout the whole world. Some of them, accordingly, have made
it their business to itinerate not only through cities, but even villages
and country houses,[2] that they might make converts to God. And no one
would maintain that they did this for the sake of gain, when sometimes they
would not accept even necessary sustenance; or if at any time they were
pressed by a necessity of this sort, were contented with the mere supply of
their wants, although many were willing to share (their abundance) with
them, and to bestow help upon them far above their need. At the present
day, indeed, when, owing to the multitude of Christian believers, not only
rich men, but persons of rank, and delicate and high-born ladies, receive
the teachers of Christianity, some   perhaps will dare to say that it is
for the sake of a little glory s that certain individuals assume the office
of Christian instructors. It is impossible,  however, rationally to
entertain such a suspicion with respect to Christianity in its beginnings,
when the danger incurred, especially by its teachers, was great; while at
the present day the discredit attaching to it among the rest of mankind is
greater than any supposed honour enjoyed among those who hold the same
belief, especially when such honour is not shared by all. It is false,
then, from the very nature of the case, to say that "if all men wished to
become Christians, the latter would not desire such a result."

CHAP. X.

   But observe what he alleges as a proof of his statement: "Christians at
first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to
be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have
his own individual party:[4] for this was their object from the beginning."
That Christians at first were few in number, in comparison with the
multitudes who subsequently became Christian, is undoubted; and yet, all
things considered, they were not so very few.[5] For what stirred up the
envy of the Jews against Jesus, and aroused them to conspire against Him,
was the great number of those who followed Him into the wilderness,--five
thousand men on one occasion, and four thousand on another, having attended
Him thither, without including the women and children. For such was the
charm[6] of Jesus' words, that not only were men willing to follow Him to
the wilderness, but women also, forgetting[7] the weakness of their sex and
a regard for outward propriety[8] in thus following their Teacher into
desert places. Children, too, who are altogether unaffected by such
emotions,[9] either following their parents, or perhaps attracted also by
His divinity, in order that it might be implanted within them, became His
followers along with their parents. But let it be granted that Christians
were few in number at the beginning, how does that help to prove that
Christians would be unwilling to make all men believe the doctrine of the
Gospel?

CHAP. XI.

   He says, in addition, that "all the Christians were of one mind," not
observing, even in this particular, that from the beginning there were
differences of opinion among believers regarding the meaning[10] of the
books held to be divine. At all events, while the apostles were still
preaching, and while eye-witnesses of (the works of) Jesus were still
teaching His doctrine, there was no small discussion among the converts
from Judaism regarding Gentile believers, on the point whether they ought
to observe Jewish customs, or should reject the burden of clean and unclean
meats, as not being obligatory on those who had abandoned their ancestral
Gentile customs, and had become believers in Jesus. Nay, even in the
Epistles of Paul, who was contemporary with those who had seen Jesus,
certain particulars are found mentioned as having been the subject of
dispute,--viz., respecting the resurrection,[1] and whether it were already
past, and the day of the Lord, whether it were nigh at hand[2] or not. Nay,
the very exhortation to "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions
of science falsely so called: which some professing, have erred concerning
the faith,"[3] is enough to show that from the very beginning, when, as
Celsus imagines, believers were few in number, there were certain doctrines
interpreted in different ways.[4]

CHAP. XII.

   In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of
heresies in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying
that "when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided
and split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own
party;" and further, that "being thus separated through their numbers, they
confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if
indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet
ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by
the various sects." In reply to which, we say that heresies of different
kinds have never originated from any matter in which the principle involved
was not important and beneficial to human life. For since the science of
medicine is useful and necessary to the human race, and many are the points
of dispute in it respecting the manner of curing bodies, there are found,
for this reason, numerous heresies confessedly prevailing in the science of
medicine among the Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous
nations who profess to employ medicine. And, again, since philosophy makes
a profession of the truth, and promises a knowledge of existing things with
a view to the regulation of life, and endeavours to teach what is
advantageous to our race, and since the investigation of these matters is
attended with great differences of opinion,[5] innumerable heresies have
consequently sprung up in philosophy, some of which are more celebrated
than others. Even Judaism itself afforded a pretext for the origination of
heresies, in the different acceptation accorded to the writings of Moses
and those of the prophets. So, then, seeing Christianity appeared an object
of veneration to men, not to the more servile class alone, as Celsus
supposes, but to many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary
pursuits,[6] there necessarily originated heresies,--not at all, however,
as the result of faction and strife, but through the earnest desire of many
literary men to become acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity. The
consequence of which was, that, taking in different acceptations those
discourses which were believed by all to be divine, there arose heresies,
which received their names from those individuals who admired, indeed, the
origin of Christianity, but who were led, in some way or other, by certain
plausible reasons, to discordant views. And yet no one would act rationally
in avoiding medicine because of its heresies; nor would he who aimed at
that which is seemly[7] entertain a hatred of philosophy, and adduce its
many heresies as a pretext for his antipathy. And so neither are the sacred
books of Moses and the prophets to be condemned on account of the heresies
in Judaism.

CHAP. XIII.

   Now, if these arguments hold good, why should we not defend, in the
same way, the existence of heresies in Christianity? And respecting these,
Paul appears to me to speak in a very striking manner when he says, "For
there must be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made
manifest among you."[8] For as that man is "approved" in medicine who, on
account of his experience in various (medical) heresies, and his honest
examination of the majority of them, has selected the preferable system,--
and as the great proficient in philosophy is he who, after acquainting
himself experimentally with the various views, has given in his adhesion to
the best,--so I would say that the wisest Christian was he who had
carefully studied the heresies both of Judaism and Christianity. Whereas he
who finds fault with Christianity because of its heresies would find fault
also with the teaching of Socrates, from whose school have issued many
others of discordant views. Nay, the opinions of Plato might be chargeable
with error, on account of Aristotle's having separated from his school, and
founded a new one,--on which subject we have remarked in the preceding
book. But it appears to me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain
heresies which do not possess even the name of Jesus in common with us.
Perhaps he had heard of the sects called Ophites and Cainites, or some
others of a similar nature, which had departed in all points from the
teaching of Jesus. And yet surely this furnishes no ground for a charge
against the Christian doctrine.

CHAP. XIV.

   After this he continues: "Their union is the more wonderful, the more
it can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet rebellion is
a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which accrue from it, and
the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes which give stability to
their faith." To this we answer, that our union does thus rest upon a
reason, or rather not upon a reason, but upon the divine working,[1] so
that its commencement was God's teaching men, in the prophetical writings,
to expect the advent of Christ, who was to be the Saviour of mankind. For
in so far as this point is not really refuted (although it may seem to be
by unbelievers), in the same proportion is the doctrine commended as the
doctrine of God, and Jesus shown to be the Son of God both before and after
His incarnation. I maintain, moreover, that even after His incarnation, He
is always found by those who possess the acutest spiritual vision to be
most God-like, and to have really come down to us from God, and to have
derived His origin or subsequent development not from human wisdom, but
from the manifestation[2] of God within Him, who by His manifold wisdom and
miracles established Judaism first, and Christianity afterwards; and the
assertion that rebellion, and the advantages attending it, were the
originating causes of a doctrine which has converted and improved so many
men was effectually refuted.

CHAP. XV.

   But again, that it is not the fear of external enemies which
strengthens our union, is plain from the fact that this cause, by God's
will, has already, for a considerable time, ceased to exist. And it is
probable that the secure existence, so far as regards the world, enjoyed by
believers at present, will come to an end, since those who calumniate
Christianity in every way are again attributing the present frequency of
rebellion to the multitude of believers, and to their not being persecuted
by the authorities as in old times. For we have learned from the Gospel
neither to relax our efforts in days of peace, and to give ourselves up to
repose, nor, when the world makes war upon us, to become cowards, and
apostatize from the love of the God of all things which is in Jesus Christ.
And we clearly manifest the illustrious nature of our origin, and do not
(as Celsus imagines) conceal it, when we impress upon the minds of our
first converts a contempt for idols, and images of all kinds, and, besides
this, raise their thoughts from the worship of created things instead of
God, and elevate them to the universal Creator; dearly showing Him to be
the subject of prophecy, both from the predictions regarding Him--of which
there are many--and from those traditions which have been carefully
investigated by such as are able intelligently to understand the Gospels,
and the declarations of the apostles.

CHAP. XVI.

   "But what the legends are of every kind which we gather together, or
the terrors which we invent," as Celsus without proof asserts, he who likes
may show. I know not, indeed, what he means by "inventing terrors," unless
it be our doctrine of God as Judge, and of the condemnation of men for
their deeds, with the various proofs derived partly from Scripture, partly
from probable reason. And yet--for truth is precious--Celsus says, at the
close, "Forbid that either I, or these, or any other individual should ever
reject the doctrine respecting the future punishment of the wicked and the
reward of the good!" What terrors, then, if you except the doctrine of
punishment, do we invent and impose upon mankind? And if he should reply
that "we weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources, and
trumpet them aloud, and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele
clash their cymbals in the ears of those who are being initiated in their
mysteries; "[3] we shall ask him in reply, "Erroneous opinions from what
ancient sources?" For, whether he refers to Grecian accounts, which taught
the existence of courts of justice under the earth, or Jewish, which, among
other things, predicted the life that follows the present one; he will be
unable to show that we who, striving to believe on grounds of reason,
regulate our lives in conformity with such doctrines, have failed correctly
to ascertain the truth.[4]

CHAP. XVII.

   He wishes, indeed, to compare the articles of our faith to those of the
Egyptians; " among whom, as you approach their sacred edifices, are to be
seen splendid enclosures, and groves, and large and beautiful gateways,[1]
and wonderful temples, and magnificent tents around them, and ceremonies of
worship full of superstition and mystery; but when you have entered, and
passed within, the object of worship is seen to be a cat, or an ape, or a
crocodile, or a goat, or a dog!" Now, what is the resemblance[2] between us
and the splendours of Egyptian worship which are seen by those who draw
near their temples? And where is the resemblance to those irrational
animals which are worshipped within, after you pass through the splendid
gateways? Are our prophecies, and the God of all things, and the
injunctions against images,[3] objects of reverence in the view of Celsus
also, and Jesus Christ crucified, the analogue to the worship of the
irrational animal? But if he should assert this--and I do not think that he
will maintain anything else--we shall reply that we have spoken in the
preceding pages at greater length in defence of those charges affecting
Jesus, showing that what appeared to have happened to Him in the capacity
of His human nature, was fraught with benefit to all men, and with
salvation to the whole world.

CHAP. XVIII.

   In the next place, referring to the statements of the Egyptians, who
talk loftily about irrational animals, and who assert that they are a sort
of symbols of God, or anything else which their prophets, so termed, are
accustomed to call them, Celsus says that "an impression is produced in the
minds of those who have learned these things; that they have not been
initiated in vain; "[4] while with regard to the truths which are taught in
our writings to those who have made progress in the study of Christianity
(through that which is called by Paul the gift consisting in the "word of
wisdom" through the Spirit, and in the "word of knowledge" according to the
Spirit), Celsus does not seem even to have formed an idea,[5] judging not
only from what he has already said, but from what he subsequently adds in
his attack upon the Christian system, when he asserts that Christians
"repel every wise man from the doctrine of their faith, and invite only the
ignorant and the vulgar;" on which assertions we shall remark in due time,
when we come to the proper place.

CHAP. XIX.

   He says, indeed, that "we ridicule the Egyptians, although they present
many by no means contemptible mysteries[6] for our consideration, when they
teach us that such rites are acts of worship offered to eternal ideas, and
not, as the multitude think, to ephemeral animals; and that we are silly,
because we introduce nothing nobler than the goats and dogs of the Egyptian
worship in our narratives about Jesus." Now to this we reply, "Good sir,[7]
(suppose that) you are right in eulogizing the fact that the Egyptians
present to view many by no means contemptible mysteries, and obscure
explanations about the animals (worshipped) among them, you nevertheless do
not act consistently in accusing us as if you believed that we had nothing
to state which was worthy of consideration, but that all our doctrines were
contemptible and of no account, seeing we unfold s the narratives
concerning Jesus according to the ' wisdom of the word' to those who are
'perfect' in Christianity. Regarding whom, as being competent to understand
the wisdom that is in Christianity, Paul says: 'We speak wisdom among them
that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of
this world, who come to nought, but we speak the wisdom of God in a
mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto
our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew.'"[9]

CHAP. XX.

   And we say to those who hold similar opinions to those of Celsus: "Paul
then, we are to suppose, had before his mind the idea of no pre-eminent
wisdom when he professed to speak wisdom among them that are perfect?" Now,
as he spoke with his customary boldness when in making such a profession he
said that he was possessed of no wisdom, we shall say in reply: first of
all examine the Epistles of him who utters these words, and look carefully
at the meaning of each expression in them--say, in those to the Ephesians,
and Colossians, and Thessalonians, and Philippians, and Romans,--and show
two things, both that you understand Paul's words, and that you can
demonstrate any of them to be silly or foolish. For if any one give himself
to their attentive perusal, I am well assured either that he will be amazed
at the understanding of the man who can clothe great ideas in common
language; or if he be not amazed, he will only exhibit himself in a
ridiculous light, whether he simply state the meaning of the writer as if
he had comprehended it, or try to controvert and confute what he only
imagined that he understood!

CHAP. XI.

   And I have not yet spoken of the observance[1] of all that is written
in the Gospels, each one of which contains much doctrine difficult to be
understood, not merely by the multitude, but even by certain of the more
intelligent, including a very profound explanation of the parables which
Jesus delivered to "those without," while reserving the exhibition of their
full meaning, for those who had passed beyond the stage of exoteric
teaching, and who came to Him privately in the house. And when he comes  to
understand it, he will admire the reason why some are said to be "without,"
and others "in the house." And again, who would not be filled with
astonishment that is able to comprehend the movements[3] of Jesus;
ascending at one time a mountain for the purpose of delivering certain
discourses, or of performing certain miracles, or for His own
transfiguration, and descending again to heal the sick and those who were
unable to follow Him whither His disciples went? But it is not the
appropriate time to describe at present the truly venerable and divine
contents of the Gospels, or the mind of Christ--that is, the wisdom and the
word--contained in the writings of Paul. But what we have said is
sufficient by way of answer to the unphilosophic sneers[4] of Celsus, in
Comparing the inner mysteries of the  Church of God to the cats, and apes,
and crocodiles, and goats, and dogs of Egypt.

CHAP. XXII.

   But this low jester[5] Celsus, omitting no species of mockery and
ridicule which can be employed against us, mentions in his treatise the
Dioscuri, and Hercules, and AEsculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed by
the Greeks to have become gods after being men, and says that "we cannot
bear to call such beings gods, because they were   at first men,[6] and yet
they manifested many noble qualifies, which were displayed for the benefit
of mankind, while we assert that Jesus was seen after His death by His own
followers;" and he brings against us an additional charge, as if we said
that "He was seen indeed, but was   only a shadow!" Now to this we reply,
that it was very artful of Celsus not here clearly to indicate that he did
not regard these beings as gods, for he was afraid of the opinion of those
who might peruse his treatise, and who might suppose him to be an atheist;
whereas, if he had paid respect to what appeared to him to be the truth, he
would not have feigner to regard them as gods.[7] Now to either of the
allegations we are ready with an answer. Let us, accordingly, to those who
do not regard them as gods reply as follows: These beings, then, are not
gods at all; but agreeably to the view of those who think that the soul of
man perishes immediately (after death), the souls of these men also
perished; or according to the opinion of those who say that the soul
continues to subsist or is immortal, these men continue to exist or are
immortal, and they are not gods but heroes,--or not even heroes, but simply
souls. If, then, on the one hand, you suppose them not to exist, we shall
have to prove the doctrine of the soul's immortality, which is to us a
doctrine of pre-eminent importance;[8] if, on the other hand, they do
exist, we have still to prove[9] the doctrine of immortality, not only by
what the Greeks have so well said regarding it, but also in a manner
agreeable to the teaching of Holy Scripture. And we shall demonstrate that
it is impossible for those who were polytheists during their lives to
obtain a better country and position after their departure from this world,
by quoting the histories that are related of them, in which is recorded the
great dissoluteness of Hercules, and his effeminate bondage with Omphale,
together with the statements regarding AEsculapius, that their Zeus struck
him dead by a thunderbolt. And of the Dioscuri, it will be said that they
die often--

   "At one time live on alternate days, and at another
   Die, and obtain honour equally with the gods."[10]

How, then, can they reasonably imagine that one of these is to be regarded
as a god or a hero?

CHAP. XXIII.

   But we, in proving the facts related of our Jesus from the prophetic
Scriptures, and comparing afterwards His history with them, demonstrate
that no dissoluteness on His part is recorded. For even they who conspired
against Him, and who sought false witnesses to aid them, did not find even
any plausible grounds for advancing a false charge against Him, so as to
accuse Him of licentiousness; but His death was indeed the result of a
conspiracy, and bore no resemblance to the death of AEsculapius by
lightning. And what is there that is venerable in the madman Dionysus, and
his female garments, that he should be worshipped as a god? And if they who
would defend such beings betake themselves to allegorical interpretations,
we must examine each individual instance, and ascertain whether it is well
founded,[1] and also in each particular case, whether those beings can have
a real existence, and are deserving of respect and worship who were torn by
the Titans, and cast down from their heavenly throne. Whereas our Jesus,
who appeared to the members of His own troop[2]--for I will take the word
that Celsus employs--did really appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation
against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. And let the
statements of their histories and that of Jesus be carefully compared
together. Will Celsus have the former to be true, but the latter, although
recorded by eye-witnesses who showed by their acts that they clearly
understood the nature of what they had seen, and who manifested their state
of mind by what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of His Gospel, to be
inventions? Now, who is there that, desiring to act always in conformity
with right reason, would yield his assent at random[3] to what is related
of the one, but would rush to the history of Jesus, and without examination
refuse to believe what is recorded of Him?[4]

CHAP. XXIV.

   And again, when it is said of AEsculapius that a great multitude both
of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen, and
still see, no mere phantom, but AEsculapius himself, healing and doing
good, and foretelling the future; Celsus requires us to believe this, and
finds no fault with the believers in Jesus, when we express our belief in
such stories, but when we give our assent to the disciples, and eye-wit-
nesses of the miracles of Jesus, who clearly manifest the honesty of their
convictions (because we see their guilelessness, as far as it is possible
to see the conscience revealed in writing), we are called by him a set of
"silly" individuals, although he cannot demonstrate that an incalculable[5]
number, as he asserts, of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge the existence
of AEsculapius; while we, if we deem this a matter of importance, can
clearly show a countless multitude of Greeks and Barbarians who acknowledge
the existence of Jesus. And some give evidence of their having received
through this faith a marvellous power by the cures which they perform,
revoking no other name over those who need their help than that of the God
of all things, and of Jesus, along with a mention of His history. For by
these means we too have seen many persons freed from grievous calamities,
and from distractions of mind,[6] and madness, and countless other ills,
which could be cured neither by men nor devils.

CHAP. XXV.

   Now, in order to grant that there did exist a healing spirit named
AEsculapius, who used to cure the bodies of men, I would say to those who
are astonished at such an occurrence, or at the prophetic knowledge of
Apollo, that since the cure of bodies is a thing indifferent,[7] and a
matter within the reach not merely of the good,[8] but also of the bad; and
as the foreknowledge of the future is also a thing indifferent--for the
possessor of foreknowledge does not necessarily manifest the possession of
virtue--you must show that they who practise healing or who forefell the
future are in no respect wicked, but exhibit a perfect pattern of virtue,
and are not far from being regarded as gods. But they will not be able to
show that they are virtuous who practise the art of healing, or who are
gifted with foreknowledge, seeing many who are not fit to live are related
to have been healed; and these, too, persons whom, as leading improper
lives, no wise physician would wish to heal. And in the responses of the
Pythian oracle also you may find some injunctions which are not in
accordance with reason, two of which we will adduce on the present
occasion; viz., when it gave commandment that Cleomedes[9]--the boxer, I
suppose--should be honoured with divine honours, seeing some great
importance or other attaching to his pugilistic skill, but did not confer
either upon Pythagoras or upon Socrates the honours which it awarded to
pugilism; and also when it called Archilochus "the servant of the Muses"--a
man who employed his poetic powers upon topics of the most wicked and
licentious nature, and whose public character was dissolute and impure--and
entitled him "pious,"[10] in respect of his being the servant of the Muses,
who are deemed to be goddesses! Now I am inclined to think that no one
would assert that he was a "pious" man who was not adorned with all
moderation and virtue, or that a decorous[11] man would utter such
expressions as are contained in the unseemly[12] iambics of Archilochus.
And if nothing that is divine in itself is shown to belong either to the
healing skill of AEsculapius or the prophetic power of Apollo, how could
any one, even were I to grant that the facts are as alleged, reasonably
worship them as pure divinities?--and especially when the prophetic spirit
of Apollo, pure from any body of earth, secretly enters through the private
parts the person of her who is called the priestess, as she is seated at
the mouth of the Pythian cave![1] Whereas regarding Jesus and His power we
have no such notion; for the body which was born of the Virgin was composed
of human material, and capable of receiving human wounds and death.

CHAP. XXVI.

   Let us see what Celsus says next, when he adduces from history
marvellous occurrences, which in themselves seem to be incredible, but
which are not discredited by him, so far at least as appears from his
words. And, in the first place, regarding Aristeas of Proconnesus, of whom
he speaks as follows: "Then, with respect to Aristeas of Proconnesus, who
disappeared from among men in a manner so indicative of divine
intervention,[2] and who showed himself again in so unmistakeable a
fashion, and on many subsequent occasions visited many parts of the world,
and announced marvellous events, and whom Apollo enjoined the inhabitants
of Metapontium to regard as a god, no one considers him to be a god." This
account he appears to have taken from Pindar and Herodotus. It will be
sufficient, however, at present to quote the statement of the latter writer
from the fourth book of his histories, which is to the following effect:
"Of what country Aristeas, who made these verses, was, has already been
mentioned, and I shall now relate the account I heard of him in Proconnesus
and Cyzicus. They say that Aristeas, who was inferior to none of the
citizens by birth, entering into a fuller's shop in Proconnesus, died
suddenly, and that the fuller, having closed his workshop, went to acquaint
the relatives of the deceased. When the report had spread through the city
that Aristeas was dead, a certain Cyzi-cenian, arriving from Artace, fell
into a dispute with those who made the report, affirming that he had met
and conversed with him on his way to Cyzicus, and he vehemently disputed
the truth of the report; but the relations of the deceased went to the
fuller's shop, taking with them what was necessary for the purpose of
carrying the body away; but when the house was opened, Aristeas was not to
be seen, either dead or alive. They say that afterwards, in the seventh
year, he appeared in Proconnesus, composed those verses which by the Greeks
are now called Arimaspian, and having composed them, disappeared a second
time. Such is the story current in these cities. But these things I know
happened to the Metapontines in Italy 340 years after the second
disappearance of Aristeas, as I discovered by computation in Proconnesus
and Metapontium. The Metapontines say that Aristeas himself, having
appeared in their country, exhorted them to erect an altar to Apollo, and
to place near it a statue beating the name of Aristeas the Proconnesian;
for he said that Apollo had visited their country only of all the Italians,
and that he himself, who was now Aristeas, accompanied him; and that when
he accompanied the god he was a crow; and after saying this he vanished.
And the Metapontines say they sent to Delphi to inquire of the god what the
apparition of the man meant; but the Pythian bade them obey the apparition,
and if they obeyed it would conduce to their benefit. They accordingly,
having received this answer, fulfilled the injunctions. And now, a statue
beating the name of Aristeas is placed near the image of Apollo, and around
it laurels are planted: the image is placed in the  public square. Thus
much concerning Aristeas."[3]

CHAP. XXVII.

   Now, in answer to this account of Aristeas, we have to say, that if
Celsus had adduced it as history, without signifying his own assent to its
truth, it is in a different way that we should have met his argument. But
since he asserts that he "disappeared through the intervention of the
divinity," and "showed himself again in an unmistakeable manner," and
"visited many parts of the world," and "made marvellous announcements;"
and, moreover, that there was "an oracle of Apollo, enjoining the
Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god," he gives the accounts relating to
him as upon his own authority, and with his full assent. And (this being
the case), we ask, How is it possible that, while supposing the marvels
related by the disciples of Jesus regarding their Master to be wholly
fictitious, and finding fault with those who believe them, you, O Celsus,
do not regard these stories of yours to be either products of jugglery[4]
or inventions? And how,[5] while charging others with an irrational belief
in the marvels recorded of Jesus, can you show yourself justified in giving
credence to such statement as the above, without producing some proof or
evidence of the alleged occurrences having taken place? Or do Herodotus and
Pindar appear to you to speak the truth, while they who have made it their
concern to die for the doctrine of Jesus, and who have left to their
successors writings so remarkable on the truths which they believed,
entered for the sake of "fictions" (as you consider them), and "myths," and
"juggleries," upon a struggle which entails a life of danger and a death of
violence? Place yourself, then, as a neutral party, between what is related
of Aristeas and what is recorded of Jesus, and see whether, from the
result, and from the benefits which have accrued from the reformation of
morals, and to the worship of the God who is over all things, it is not
allowable to conclude that we must believe the events recorded of Jesus not
to have happened without the divine intervention, but that this was not the
case with the story of Aristeas the Proconnesian.

CHAP. XXVIII.

   For with what purpose in view did Providence accomplish the marvels
related of Aristeas? And to confer what benefit upon the human race did
such remarkable events, as you regard them, take place? You cannot answer.
But we, when we relate the events of the history of Jesus, have no ordinary
defence to offer for their occurrence;--this, viz., that God desired to
commend the doctrine of Jesus as a doctrine which was to save mankind, and
which was based, indeed, upon the apostles as foundations of the rising(1)
edifice of Christianity, but which increased in magnitude also in the
succeeding ages, in which not a few cures are wrought in the name of Jesus,
and certain other manifestations of no small moment have taken place. Now
what sort of person is Apollo, who enjoined the Metapon-tines to treat
Aristeas as a god? And with what object does he do this? And what advantage
was he procuring to the Metapontines from this divine worship, if they were
to regard him as a god, who a little ago was a mortal? And yet the
recommendations of Apollo (viewed by us as a demon who has obtained the
honour of libation and sacrificial odours(2)) regarding this Aristeas
appear to you to be worthy of consideration; while those of the God of all
things, and of His holy angels, made known beforehand through the prophets-
-not after the birth of Jesus, but before He appeared among men--do not
stir you up to admiration, not merely of the prophets who received the
Divine Spirit, but of Him also who was the object of their predictions,
whose entrance into life was so clearly predicted many years beforehand by
numerous prophets, that the whole Jewish people who were hanging in
expectation of the coming of Him who was looked for, did, after the advent
of Jesus, fall into a keen dispute with each other; and that a great
multitude of them acknowledged Christ, and believed Him to be the object of
prophecy, while others did not believe in Him, but, despising the meekness
of those who, on account of the teaching of Jesus, were unwilling to cause
even the most trifling sedition, dared to inflict on Jesus those cruelties
which His disciples have so truthfully and candidly recorded, without
secretly omitting from their marvellous history of Him what seems to the
multitude to bring disgrace upon the doctrine of Christianity. But both
Jesus Himself and His disciples desired that His followers should believe
not merely in His Godhead and miracles, as if He had not also been a
partaker of human nature, and had assumed the human flesh which "lusteth
against the Spirit;"(3) but they saw also that the power which had
descended into human nature, and into the midst of human miseries, and
which had assumed a human soul and body, contributed through faith, along
with its divine elements, to the salvation of believers,(4) when they see
that from Him there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in
order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be
divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who not only believe, but s
enter upon the life which Jesus taught, and which elevates to friendship
with God and communion with Him every one who lives according to the
precepts of Jesus.

CHAP. XXIX.

   According to Celsus, then, Apollo wished the Metapontines to treat
Aristeas as a god. But as the Metapontines considered the evidence in
favour of Aristeas being a man--and probably not a virtuous one--to be
stronger than the declaration of the oracle to the effect that he was a god
or worthy of divine honours, they for that reason would not obey Apollo,
and consequently no one regarded Aristeas as a god. But with respect to
Jesus we would say that, as it was of advantage to the human race to accept
him as the Son of God--God come in a human soul and body--and as this did
not seem to be advantageous to the gluttonous appetites(6) of the demons
which love bodies, and to those who deem them to be gods on that account,
the demons that are on earth (which are supposed to be gods by those who
are not instructed in the nature of demons), and also their worshippers,
were desirous to prevent the spread of the doctrine of Jesus; for they saw
that the libations and odours in which they greedily delighted were being
swept away by the prevalence of the instructions of Jesus. But the God who
sent Jesus dissipated all the conspiracies of the demons, and made the
Gospel of Jesus to prevail throughout the whole world for the conversion
and reformation of men, and caused Churches to be everywhere established in
opposition to those of superstitious and licentious and wicked men; for
such is the character of the multitudes who constitute the citizens(1) in
the assemblies of the various cities. Whereas the Churches of God which are
instructed by Christ, when carefully contrasted with the assemblies of the
districts in which they are situated, are as beacons(2) in the world; for
who would not admit that even the inferior members of the Church, and those
who in comparison with the better are less worthy, are nevertheless more
excellent than many of those who belong to the assemblies in the different
districts?

CHAP. XXX.

   For the Church(3) of God, e.g., which is at Athens, is a meek and
stable body, as being one which desires to please God, who is over all
things; whereas the assembly(4) of the Athenians is given to sedition, and
is not at all to be compared to the Church of God in that city. And  you
may say the same thing of the Church of God at Corinth, and of the assembly
of the Corinthian people; and also of the Church of God at Alexandria, and
of the assembly of the people of Alexandria. And if he who hears this be a
candid man, and one who investigates things with a desire to ascertain the
truth, he will be filled with admiration of Him who not only conceived the
design, but also was able to secure in all places the establishment of
Churches of God alongside s of the assemblies of the people in each city.
In like manner, also, in comparing the council(6) of the Church of God with
the council in any city, you would find that certain councillors(7) of the
Church are worthy to rule in the city of God, if there be any such city in
the whole world;(8) whereas the councillors in all  other places exhibit in
their characters no quality worthy of the conventional(9) superiority which
they appear to enjoy over their fellow-citizens. And so, too, you must
compare the ruler of the Church in each city with the ruler of the people
of the city, in order to observe that even amongst those councillors and
rulers of the Church of God who come very far short of their duty, and who
lead more indolent lives than others who are more energetic, it is
nevertheless possible to discover a general superiority in what relates to
the progress of virtue over the characters of the councillors and rulers in
the various cities.(10)

CHAP. XXXI.

   Now if these things be so, why should it not be consistent with reason
to hold with regard to Jesus, who was able to effect results so great, that
there dwelt in Him no ordinary divinity? while this was not the case either
with the Proconnesian Aristeas (although Apollo would have him regarded as
a god), or with the other individuals enumerated by Celsus when he says,
"No one regards Abaris the Hyperborean as a god, who was possessed of such
power as to be borne along like an arrow from a bow."(11) For with what
object did the deity who bestowed upon this Hyperborean Abaris the power of
being carried along like an arrow, confer upon him such a gift? Was it that
the human race might be benefited thereby,(12) or did he himself obtain any
advantage from the possession of such a power?--always supposing it to be
conceded that these statements are not wholly inventions, but that the
thing actually happened through the co-operation of some demon. But if it
be recorded that my Jesus was received up into glory,(13) I perceive the
divine arrangement(14) in such an act, viz., because God, who brought this
to pass, commends in this way the Teacher to those who witnessed it, in
order that as men who are contending not for human doctrine, but for divine
teaching, they may devote themselves as far as possible to the God who is
over all, and may do all things in order to please Him, as those who are to
receive in the divine judgment the reward of the good or evil which they
have wrought in this life.

CHAP. XXXII.

   But as Celsus next mentions the case of the 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 uttered by Him, might either be evil spoken of, as
inventions like these, or might excite no surprise, as not being more
remarkable than other occurrences. But my Jesus said regarding His own soul
(which was separated from the body, not by virtue of any human necessity,
but by the miraculous power which was given Him also for this purpose): "No
one taketh my life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to
lay it down, and I have power to take it again."(1) For as He had power to
lay it down, He laid it down when He said, "Father, why hast Thou forsaken
Me? And when He had cried with a loud voice, He gave up the ghost,"(2)
anticipating the public executioners of the crucified, who break the legs
of the victims, and who do so in order that their punishment may not be
further prolonged. And He "took His life," when He manifested Himself to
His disciples, having in their presence foretold to the unbelieving Jews,
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,"(3) and
"He spake this of the temple of His body;" the prophets, moreover, having
predicted such a result in many other passages of their writings, and in
this, "My flesh also shall rest in hope: for Thou wilt not leave my soul in
hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption."(4)

CHAP. XXXIII.

   Celsus, however, shows that he has read a good many Grecian histories,
when he quotes further what is told of Cleomedes of Astypalaea, "who," he
relates, "entered into an ark, and although shut up within it, was not
found therein, but through some arrangement of the divinity, flew out, when
certain persons had cut open the ark in order to apprehend him." Now this
story, if an invention, as it appears to be, cannot be compared with what
is related of Jesus, since in the lives of such men there is found no
indication of their possessing the divinity which is ascribed to them;
whereas the divinity of Jesus is established both by the existence of the
Churches of the saved,(5) and by the prophecies uttered concerning Him, and
by the cures wrought in His name, and by the wisdom and knowledge which are
in Him, and the deeper truths which are discovered by those who know how to
ascend from a simple faith, and to investigate the meaning which lies in
the divine Scriptures, agreeably to the injunctions of Jesus, who said,
"Search the Scriptures,"(6) and to the wish of Paul, who taught that "we
ought to know how to answer every man;"(7) nay, also of him who said, "Be
ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh of you a reason of
the faiths that is in you."(9) If he wishes to have it conceded, however,
that it is not a fiction, let him show with what object this supernatural
power made him, through some arrangement of the divinity, flee from the
ark. For if he will adduce any reason worthy of consideration, and point
out any purpose worthy of God in conferring such a power on Cleomedes, we
will decide on the answer which we ought to give; but if he fail to say
anything convincing on the point, clearly because no reason can be
discovered, then we shall either speak slightingly of the story to those
who have not accepted it, and charge it with being false, or we shall say
that some demoniac power, casting a glamour over the eyes, produced, in the
case of the Astypalaean, a result like that which is produced by the
performers of juggling tricks,(10) while Celsus thinks that with respect to
him he has spoken like an oracle, when he said that "by some divine
arrangement he flew away from the ark."

CHAP. XXXIV.

   I am, however, of opinion that these individuals are the only instances
with which Celsus was acquainted. And yet, that he might appear voluntarily
to pass by other similar cases, he says, "And one might name many others of
the same kind." Let it be granted, then, that many such persons have
existed who conferred no benefit upon the human race: what would each one
of their acts be found to amount to in comparison with the work of Jesus,
and the miracles related of Him, of which we have already spoken at
considerable length? He next imagines that, "in worshipping him who," as he
says, "was taken prisoner and put to death, we are acting like the Getae
who worship Zamolxis, and the Cilicians who worship Mopsus, and the
Acarnanians who pay divine honours to Amphilochus, and like the Thebans who
do the same to Amphiaraus, and the Lebadians to Trophonius." Now in these
instances we shall prove that he has compared us to the foregoing without
good grounds. For these different tribes erected temples and statues to
those individuals above enumerated, whereas we have refrained from offering
to the Divinity honour by any such means (seeing they are adapted rather to
demons, which are somehow fixed in a certain place which they prefer to any
other, or which take up their dwelling, as it were, after being removed
(from one place to another) by certain rites and incantations), and are
lost in reverential wonder at Jesus, who has recalled our minds from all
sensible things, as being not only corruptible, but destined to corruption,
and elevated them to honour the God who is over all with prayers and a
righteous life, which we offer to Him as being intermediate between the
nature of the uncreated and that of all created things,(1) and who bestows
upon us the benefits which come from the Father, and who as High Priest
conveys our prayers to the supreme God.

CHAP. XXXV.

   But I should like, in answer to him who for some unknown reason
advances such statements as the above, to make in a conversational way(2)
some such remarks as the following, which seem not inappropriate to him.
Are then those persons whom you have mentioned nonentities, and is there no
power in Lebadea connected with Trophonius, nor in Thebes with the temple
of Amphiaraus, nor in Acarnania with Amphilochus, nor in Cilicia with
Mopsus? Or is there in such persons some being, either a demon, or a hero,
or even a god, working works which are beyond the reach of man? For if he
answer that there is nothing either demoniacal or divine about these
individuals more than others, then let him at once make known his own
opinion, as being that of an Epicurean, and of one who does not hold the
same views with the Greeks, and who neither recognises demons nor worships
gods as do the Greeks; and let it be shown that it was to no purpose that
he adduced the instances previously enumerated (as if he believed them to
be true), together with those which he adds in the following pages. But if
he will assert that the persons spoken of are either demons, or heroes, or
even gods, let him notice that he will establish by what he has admitted a
result which he does not desire, viz., that Jesus also was some such being;
for which reason, too, he was able to demonstrate to not a few that He had
come down from God to visit the human race. And if he once admit this, see
whether he will not be forced to confess that He is mightier than those
individuals with whom he classed Him, seeing none of the latter forbids the
offering of honour to the others; while He, having confidence in Himself,
because He is more powerful than all those others, forbids them to be
received as divine(3) because they are wicked demons, who have taken
possession of places on earth, through inability to rise to the purer and
diviner region, whither the grossnesses of earth and its countless evils
cannot reach.

CHAP. XXXVI.

   But as he next introduces the case of the favourite of Adrian (I refer
to the accounts regarding the youth Antinous, and the honours paid him by
the inhabitants of the city of Antinous in Egypt), and imagines that the
honour paid to him falls little short of that which we render to Jesus, let
us show in what a spirit of hostility this statement is made. For what is
there in common between a life lived among the favourites of Adrian, by one
who did not abstain even from unnatural lusts, and that of the venerable
Jesus, against whom even they who brought countless other charges, and who
told so many falsehoods, were not able to allege that He manifested, even
in the slightest degree, any tendency to what was licentious?(4) Nay,
further, if one were to investigate, in a spirit of truth and impartiality,
the stories relating to Antinous, he would find that it was due to the
magical arts and rites of the Egyptians that there was even the appearance
of his performing anything (marvellous) in the city which bears his name,
and that too only after his decease,--an effect which is said to have been
produced in other temples by the Egyptians, and those who are skilled in
the arts which they practise. For they set up in certain places demons
claiming prophetic or healing power, and which frequently torture those who
seem to have committed any mistake about ordinary kinds of food, or about
touching the dead body of a man, that they may have the appearance of
alarming the uneducated multitude. Of this nature is the being that is
considered to be a god in Antinoopolis in Egypt, whose (reputed) virtues
are the lying inventions of some who live by the gain derived therefrom;(5)
while others, deceived by the demon placed there, and others again
convicted by a weak conscience, actually think that they are paying a
divine penalty inflicted by Antinous. Of such a nature also are the
mysteries which they perform, and the seeming predictions which they utter.
Far different from such are those of Jesus. For it was no company of
sorcerers, paying court to a king or ruler at his bidding, who seemed to
have made him a god; but the Architect of the universe Himself, in keeping
with the marvellously persuasive power of His words,(6) commended Him as
worthy of honour, not only to those men who were well disposed, but to
demons also, and other unseen powers, which even at the present time show
that they either fear the name of Jesus as that of a being of superior
power, or reverentially accept Him as their legal ruler.[1] For if the
commendation had not been given Him by God, the demons would not have
withdrawn from those whom they had assailed, in obedience to the mere
mention of His name.

CHAP. XXXVII.

   The Egyptians, then, having been taught to worship Antinous, will, if
you compare him with Apollo or Zeus, endure such a comparison, Antinous
being magnified in their estimation through being classed with these
deities; for Celsus is clearly convicted of falsehood when he says, "that
they will not endure his being compared with Apollo or Zeus." Whereas
Christians (who have learned that their eternal life consists in knowing
the only true God, who is over all, and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent; and
who have learned also that all the gods of the heathen are greedy demons,
which flit around sacrifices and blood, and other sacrificial
accompaniments,[2] in order to deceive those who have not taken refuge with
the God who is over all, but that the divine and holy angels of God are of
a different nature and will[3] from all the demons on earth, and that they
are known to those exceedingly few persons who have carefully and
intelligently investigated these matters) will not endure a comparison to
be made between them and Apollo or Zeus, or any being worshipped with odour
and blood and sacrifices; some of them, so acting from their extreme
simplicity, not being able to give a reason for their conduct, but
sincerely observing the precepts which they have received; others, again,
for reasons not to be lightly regarded, nay, even of a profound
description, and (as a Greek would say) drawn from the inner nature of
things;[4] and amongst the latter of these God is a frequent subject of
conversation, and those who are honoured by God, through His only-begotten
Word, with participation in His divinity, and therefore also in His name.
They speak much, too, both regarding the angels of God and those who are
opposed to the truth, but have been deceived; and who, in consequence of
being deceived, call them gods or angels of God, or good demons, or heroes
who have become such by the transference into them of a good human soul.[5]
And such Christians will also show, that as in philosophy there are many
who appear to be in possession of the truth, who have yet either deceived
themselves by plausible arguments, or by rashly assenting to what was
brought forward and discovered by others; so also, among those souls which
exist apart from bodies, both angels and demons, there are some which have
been induced by plausible reasons to declare themselves gods. And because
it was impossible that the reasons of such things could be discovered by
men with perfect exactness, it was deemed safe that no mortal should
entrust himself to any being as to God, with the exception of Jesus Christ,
who is, as it were, the Ruler over all things, and who both beheld these
weighty secrets, and made them known to a few.

CHAP. XXXVIII.

   The belief, then, in Antinous,[5] or any other such person, whether
among the Egyptians or the Greeks, is, so to speak, unfortunate; while the
belief in Jesus would seem to be either a fortunate one, or the result of
thorough investigation, having the appearance of the former to the
multitude, and of the latter to exceedingly few.[7] And when I speak of a
certain belief being, as the multitude would call it, unfortunate, I in
such a case refer the cause to God, who knows the reasons of the various
fates allotted to each one who enters human life. The Greeks, moreover,
will admit that even amongst those who are considered to be most largely
endowed with wisdom, good fortune has had much to do, as in the choice of
teachers of one kind rather than another, and in meeting with a better
class of instructors (there being teachers who taught the most opposite
doctrines), and in being brought up in better circumstances; for the
bringing up of many has been amid surroundings of such a kind, that they
were prevented from ever receiving any idea of better things, but
constantly passed their life, from their earliest youth, either as the
favourites of licentious men or of tyrants, or in some other wretched
condition which forbade the soul to look upwards. And the causes of these
varied fortunes, according to all probability, are to be found in the
reasons of providence, though it is not easy for men to ascertain these;
but I have said what I have done by way of digression from the main body of
my subject, on account of the proverb, that "such is the power of faith,
because it seizes that which first presents itself."[8] For it was
necessary, owing to the different methods of education, to speak of the
differences of belief among men, some of whom are more, others less
fortunate in their belief; and from this to proceed to show that what is
termed good or bad fortune would appear to contribute even in the case of
the most talented, to their appearing to be more fully endowed with reason
and to give their assent on grounds of reason to the majority of human
opinions. But enough on these points.

CHAP. XXXIX.

   We must notice the remarks which Celsus next makes, when he says to us,
that "faith, having taken possession of our minds, makes us yield the
assent which we give to the doctrine of Jesus;" for of a truth it is faith
which does produce such an assent. Observe, however, whether that faith
does not of itself exhibit what is worthy of praise, seeing we entrust
ourselves to the God who is over all, acknowledging our gratitude to Him
who has led us to such a faith, and declaring that He could not have
attempted or accomplished such a result without the divine assistance. And
we have confidence also in the intentions of the writers of the Gospels,
observing their piety and conscientiousness, manifested in their writings,
which contain nothing that is spurious, or deceptive,[1] or false, or
cunning; for it is evident to us that souls unacquainted with those
artifices which are taught by the cunning sophistry of the Greeks (which is
characterized by great plausibility and acuteness), and by the kind of
rhetoric in vogue in the courts of justice, would not have been able thus
to invent occurrences which are fitted of themselves to conduct to faith,
and to a life in keeping with faith. And I am of opinion that it was on
this account that Jesus wished to employ such persons as teachers of His
doctrines, viz., that there might be no ground for any suspicion of
plausible sophistry, but that it might clearly appear to all who were
capable of understanding, that the guileless purpose of the writers being,
so to speak, marked with great simplicity, was deemed worthy of being
accompanied by a diviner power, which accomplished far more than it seemed
possible could be accomplished by a periphrasis of words, and a weaving of
sentences, accompanied by all the distinctions of Grecian art.

CHAP. XL.

   But observe whether the principles of our  faith, harmonizing with the
general ideas implanted in our minds at birth, do not produce a change upon
those who listen candidly to its statements; for although a perverted view
of things, with the aid of much instruction to the same effect, has been
able to implant in the minds of the multitude the belief that images are
gods, and that things made of gold, and silver, and ivory, and stone are
deserving of worship, yet common sense[2] forbids the supposition that God
is at all a piece of corruptible matter, or is honoured when made to assume
by men a form embodied in dead matter, fashioned according to some image or
symbol of His appearance. And therefore we say at once of images that they
are not gods, and of such creations (of art) that they are not to be
compared with the Creator, but are small in contrast with the God who is
over all, and who created, and upholds, and governs the universe. And the
rational soul recognising, as it were, its relationship (to the divine), at
once rejects what it for a time supposed to be gods, and resumes its
natural love[3] for its Creator; and because of its affection towards Him,
receives Him also who first presented these truths to all nations through
the disciples whom He had appointed, and whom He sent forth, furnished with
divine power and authority, to proclaim the doctrine regarding God and His
kingdom.

CHAP. XLI.

   But since he has charged us, I know not how often already, "with
regarding this Jesus, who was but a mortal body, as a God, and with
supposing that we act piously in so doing," it is superfluous to say any
more in answer to this, as a great deal has been said in the preceding
pages. And yet let those who make this charge understand that He whom we
regard and believe to have been from the beginning God, and the Son of God,
is the very Logos, and the very Wisdom, and the very Truth; and with
respect to His mortal body, and the human soul which it contained, we
assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but by their unity and
intermixture,[4] they received the highest powers, and after participating
in His divinity, were changed into God. And if any one should feel a
difficulty at our saying this regarding His body, let him attend to what is
said by the Greeks regarding matter, which, properly speaking, being
without qualities, receives such as the Creator desires to invest it with,
and which frequently divests itself of those which it formerly possessed,
and assumes others of a different and higher kind. And if these opinions be
correct, what is there wonderful in this, that the mortal quality of the
body of Jesus, if the providence of God has so willed it, should have been
changed into one that was ethereal and divine?[5] CHAP. XLII.

   Celsus, then, does not speak as a good reasoner,(1) when he compares
the mortal flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, asserting that
the former is more liable to corruption than the latter. For, to speak
correctly, that which is incorruptible is not more free from corruption
than another thing which is incorruptible, nor that which is corruptible
more liable to corruption than another corruptible thing. But, admitting
that there are degrees of corruptibility, we can say in answer, that if it
is possible for the matter which underlies all qualities to exchange some
of them, how should it be impossible for the flesh of Jesus also to
exchange qualities, and to become such as it was proper for a body to be
which had its abode in the ether and the regions above it, and possessing
no longer the infirmities belonging to the flesh, and those properties
which Celsus terms "impurities," and in so terming them, speaks unlike a
philosopher? For that which is properly impure, is so because of its
wickedness. Now the nature of body is not impure; for in so far as it is
bodily nature, it does not possess vice, which is the generative principle
of impurity. But, as he had a suspicion of the answer which we would
return, he says with respect to the change of the body of  Jesus, "Well,
after he has laid aside these qualities, he will be a God:" (and if so),
why not rather Aesculapius, and Dionysus, and Hercules? To which we reply,
"What great deed has AEsculapius, or Dionysus, or Hercules wrought?" And
what individuals will they be able to point out as having been improved in
character, and made better by their words and lives, so that they may make
good their claim to be gods? For let us peruse the many narratives
regarding them, and see whether they were free from licentiousness or
injustice, or folly, or cowardice. And if nothing of that kind be found in
them, the argument of Celsus might have force, which places the forenamed
individuals upon an equality with Jesus. But if it is certain that,
although some things are reported of them as reputable, they are recorded,
nevertheless, to have done innumerable things which are contrary to right
reason, how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these
men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?

CHAP. XLIII.

   He next says of us, that "we ridicule those who worship Jupiter,
because his tomb is pointed out in the island of Crete; and yet we worship
him who rose from the tomb,(2) although ignorant of the grounds(3) on which
the Cretans observe such a custom." Observe now that he thus undertakes the
defence of the Cretans, and of Jupiter, and of his tomb, alluding obscurely
to the allegorical notions, in conformity with which the myth regarding
Jupiter is said to have been invented; while he assails us who acknowledge
that our Jesus has been buried, indeed, but who maintain that He has also
been raised from the tomb,--a statement which the Cretans have not yet made
regarding Jupiter. But since he appears to admit that the tomb of Jupiter
is in Crete, when he says that "we are ignorant of the grounds on which the
Cretans observe such a custom," we reply that Callimachus the Cyrenian, who
had read innumerable poetic compositions, and nearly the whole of Greek
history, was not acquainted with any allegorical meaning  which was
contained in the stories about Jupiter  and his tomb; and accordingly he
accuses the Cretans in his hymn addressed to Jupiter, in the words:(4)--

   "The Cretans are always liars: for thy tomb, O king,
   The Cretans have reared; and yet thou didst not die,
   For thou ever livest."

Now he who said, "Thou didst not die, for thou ever livest," in denying
that Jupiter's tomb was in Crete, records nevertheless that in Jupiter
there was the beginning of death.(5) But birth upon earth is the beginning
of death. And his words run:--

   "And Rhea bore thee among the Parrhasians;"--

whereas he ought to have seen, after denying that the birth of Jupiter took
place in Crete because of his tomb, that it was quite congruous with his
birth in Arcadia that he who was born should also die. And the following is
the manner in which Callimachus speaks of these things: "O Jupiter, some
say that thou weft born on the mountains of Ida, others in Arcadia. Which
of them, O father, have lied? The Cretans are always liars," etc. Now it is
Celsus who made us discuss these topics, by the unfair manner in which he
deals with Jesus, in giving his assent to what is related about His death
and burial, but regarding as an invention His resurrection from the dead,
although this was not only foretold by innumerable prophets, but many
proofs also were given of His having appeared after death.

CHAP. XLIV.

   After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine
of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not
of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class,
and asserts that "the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one
come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such
qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or
unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with
confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy
of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain
over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and
children."(1) In reply to which, we say that, as if, while Jesus teaches
continence, and says, "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her,
hath already committed adultery with her in his heart," one were to behold
a few of those who are deemed to be Christians living licentiously, he
would most justly blame them for living contrary to the teaching of Jesus,
but would act most unreasonably if he were to charge the Gospel with their
censurable conduct; so, if he found nevertheless that the doctrine of the
Christians invites men to wisdom, the blame then must remain with those who
rest in their own ignorance, and who utter, not what Celsus relates (for
although some of them are simple and ignorant, they do not speak so
shamelessly as he alleges), but other things of much less serious import,
which, however, serve to turn aside men from the practice of wisdom.

CHAP. XLV.

   But that the object of Christianity(2) is that we should become wise,
can be proved not only from the ancient Jewish writings, which we also use,
but especially from those which were composed after the time of Jesus, and
which are believed among the Churches to be divine. Now, in the fiftieth
Psalm, David is described as saying in his prayer to God these words: "The
unseen and secret things of Thy wisdom Thou hast manifested to me."(3)
Solomon, too, because he asked for wisdom, received it; and if any one were
to peruse the Psalms, he would find the book filled with many maxims of
wisdom: and the evidences of his wisdom may be seen in his treatises, which
contain a great amount of wisdom expressed in few words, and in which you
will find many laudations of wisdom, and encouragements towards obtaining
it. So wise, moreover, was Solomon, that "the queen of Sheba, having heard
his name, and the name of the LORD, came to try him with difficult
questions, and spake to him all things, whatsoever were in her heart; and
Solomon answered her all her questions. There was no question omitted by
the king which he did not answer her. And the queen of Sheba saw all the
wisdom of Solomon, and the possessions which he had(4) and there was no
more spirit in her.(5) And she said to the king, The report is true which I
heard in mine own land regarding thee and thy wisdom; and I believed not
them who told me, until I had come, and mine eyes have seen it. And, lo,
they did not tell me the half. Thou hast added wisdom and possessions above
all the report which I heard."(6) It is recorded also of him, that "God
gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of
heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore. And the wisdom that was in
Solomon greatly excelled the wisdom of all the ancients, and of all the
wise men of Egypt; and he was wiser than all men, even than Gethan the
Ezrahite, and Emad, and Chalcadi, and Aradab, the sons of Madi. And he was
famous among all the nations round about. And Solomon spake three thousand
proverbs, and his songs were five thousand. And he spake of trees, from the
cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop which springeth out of the
wall; and also of fishes and of beasts. And all nations came to hear the
wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth who had heard of the
fame of his wisdom."(7)

   And to such a degree does the Gospel desire that there should be wise
men among believers, that for the sake of exercising the understanding of
its hearers, it has spoken certain truths in enigmas, others in what are
called "dark" sayings, others in parables, and others in problems.(8) And
one of the prophets--Hosea--says at the end of his prophecies: "Who is
wise, and he will understand these things? or prudent, and he shall know
them?"(9) Daniel, moreover, and his fellow-captives, made such progress in
the learning which the wise men around the king in Babylon cultivated, that
they were shown to excel all of them in a tenfold degree. And in the book
of Ezekiel it is said to the ruler of Tyre, who greatly prided himself on
his wisdom, "Art thou wiser than Daniel? Every secret was not revealed to
thee."(10)

CHAP. XLVI.

   And if you come to the books written after the time of Jesus, you will
find that those multitudes of believers who hear the parables are, as it
were, "without," and worthy only of exoteric doctrines, while the disciples
learn in private the explanation of the parables. For, privately, to His
own disciples did Jesus open up all things, esteeming above the multitudes
those who desired to know His wisdom. And He promises to those who believe
upon Him to send them wise men and scribes, saying, "Behold, I will send
unto you wise men and scribes, and some of them they shall kill and
crucify.", And Paul also, in the catalogue of "charismata" bestowed by God,
placed first "the word of wisdom," and second, as being inferior to it,
"the word of knowledge," but third, and lower down, "faith."(2) And because
he regarded "the word" as higher than miraculous powers, he for that reason
places "workings of miracles" and "gifts of healings" in a lower place than
the gifts of the word. And in the Acts of the Apostles Stephen bears
witness to the great learning of Moses, which he had obtained wholly from
ancient writings not accessible to the multitude. For he says: "And Moses
was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians."(3) And therefore, with
respect to his miracles, it was suspected that he wrought them perhaps, not
in virtue of his professing to come from God, but by means of his Egyptian
knowledge, in which he was well versed. For the king, entertaining such a
suspicion, summoned the Egyptian magicians, and wise men, and enchanters,
who were found to be of no avail as against the wisdom of Moses, which
proved superior to all the wisdom of the Egyptians.

CHAP. XLVII.

   But it is probable that what is written by Paul in the first Epistle to
the Corinthians,(4) as being addressed to Greeks who prided themselves
greatly on their Grecian wisdom, has moved some to believe that it was not
the object of the Gospel to win wise men. Now, let him who is of this
opinion understand that the Gospel, as censuring wicked men, says of them
that they are wise not in things which relate to the understanding, and
which are unseen and eternal; but that in busying themselves about things
of sense alone, and regarding these as all-important, they are wise men of
the world: for as there are in existence a multitude of opinions, some of
them espousing the cause of matter and bodies,(5) and asserting that
everything is corporeal which has a substantial existence,(6) and that
besides these nothing else exists, whether it be called invisible or
incorporeal, it says also that these constitute the wisdom of the world,
which perishes and fades away, and belongs only to this age, while those
opinions which raise the soul from things here to the blessedness which is
with God, and to His kingdom, and which teach men to despise all sensible
and visible things as existing only for a season, and to hasten on to
things invisible, and to have regard to those things which are not seen,--
these, it says, constitute the wisdom of God. But Paul, as a lover of
truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are
true, that "although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither
were thankful."(7) And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too,
that this did not happen to them without divine permission, in these words:
"For God showed it unto them;"(8) dimly alluding, I think, to those who
ascend from things of sense to those of the understanding, when he adds,
"For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are Clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew
God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful."(9)

CHAP. XLVIII.

   And perhaps also from the words, "For ye see your calling, brethren,
how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many
noble, are called: but God hath chosen  the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise; and the base things, and the things which are despised,
hath God chosen, and things which  are not, to bring to nought things that
are, that no flesh may glory in His presence;(10) some have been led to
suppose that no one who is instructed, or wise, or prudent, embraces the
Gospel. Now, in answer to such an one, we would say that it has not been
stated that "no wise man according to the flesh," but that "not many wise
men according to the flesh," are called. It is manifest, further, that
amongst the characteristic qualifications of those who are termed
"bishops," Paul, in describing what kind of man the bishop ought to be,
lays down as a qualification that he should also be a teacher, saying that
he ought to be able to convince the gainsayers, that by the wisdom which is
in him he may stop the mouths of foolish talkers and deceivers.(11) And as
he selects for the episcopate a man who has been once married(12) rather
than he who has twice entered the married state,(13) and a man of blameless
life rather than one who is liable to censure, and a sober man rather than
one who is not such, and a prudent man rather than one who is not prudent,
and a man whose behaviour is decorous rather than he who is open to the
charge even of the slightest indecorum, so he desires that he who is to be
chosen by preference for the office of a bishop should be apt to teach, and
able to convince the gainsayers. How then can Celsus justly charge us with
saying, "Let no one come to us who is 'instructed,' or 'wise,' or
'prudent?' " Nay, let him who wills come to us "instructed," and "wise,"
and "prudent;" and none the less, if any one be ignorant and unintelligent,
and uninstructed and foolish, let him also come: for it is these whom the
Gospel promises to cure, when they come, by rendering them all worthy of
God.

CHAP. XLIX.

   This statement also is untrue, that it is "only foolish and low
individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and
children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts."
Such indeed does the Gospel invite, in order to make them better; but it
invites also others who are very different from these, since Christ is the
Saviour of all men, and especially of them that believe, whether they be
intelligent or simple; and "He is the propitiation with the Father for our
sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."(1)
After this it is superfluous for us to wish to offer a reply to such
statements of Celsus as the following: "For why is it an evil to have been
educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the
reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the
knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by
which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?" Truly it is no evil
to have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank
those amongst the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is
what even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand,
who would not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing?
But what shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which
incite men to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to be
wise, but not to seem so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the
knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have
studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than
Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean.

CHAP. L.

   But let us see what those statements of his are which follow next in
these words: "Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in the
market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who gather crowds
around them, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to
exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob
of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent persons, thither they thrust
themselves in, and show themselves off." Observe, now, how he slanders us
in these words, comparing us to those who in the market-places perform the
most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds around them! What disreputable
tricks, pray, do we perform? Or what is there in our conduct that resembles
theirs, seeing that by means of readings, and explanations of the things
read, we lead men to the worship of the God of the universe, and to the
cognate virtues, and turn them away from contemning Deity, and from all
things contrary to right reason? Philosophers verily would wish to collect
together such hearers of their discourses as exhort men to virtue,--a
practice which certain of the Cynics especially have followed, who converse
publicly with those whom they happen to meet. Will they maintain, then,
that these who do not gather together persons who are considered to have
been educated, but who invite and assemble hearers from the public street,
resemble those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable
tricks, and gather crowds around them? Neither Celsus, however, nor any one
who holds the same opinions, will blame those who, agreeably to what they
regard as a feeling of philanthropy, address their arguments to the
ignorant populace.

CHAP. LI.

   And if they are not to be blamed for so doing, let us see whether
Christians do not exhort multitudes to the practice of virtue in a greater
and better degree than they. For the philosophers who converse in public do
not pick and choose their hearers, but he who likes stands and listens. The
Christians, however, having previously, so far as possible, tested the
souls of those who wish to become their hearers, and having previously
instructed(2) them in private, when they appear (before entering the
community) to have sufficiently evinced their desire towards a virtuous
life, introduce them then, and not before, privately forming one class of
those who are beginners, and are receiving admission, but who have not yet
obtained the mark of complete purification; and another of those who have
manifested to the best of their ability their intention to desire no other
things than are approved by Christians; and among these there are certain
persons appointed to make inquiries regarding the lives and behaviour of
those who join them, in order that they may prevent those who commit acts
of infamy from coming into their public assembly, while those of a
different character they receive with their whole heart, in order that they
may daily make them better. And this is their method of procedure, both
with those who are sinners, and especially with those who lead dissolute
lives, whom they exclude from their community, although, according to
Celsus, they resemble those who in the market-places perform the most
shameful tricks. Now  the venerable school of the Pythagoreans used to
erect a cenotaph to those who had apostatized from their system of
philosophy, treating them as dead; but the Christians lament as dead those
who have been vanquished by licentiousness or any other sin, because they
are lost and dead to God, and as being risen from the dead (if they
manifest a becoming change) they receive them afterwards, at some future
time, after a greater interval than in the case of those who were admitted
at first, but not placing in any office or post of rank in the Church of
God those who, after professing the Gospel, lapsed and fell.

CHAP. LII.

   Observe now with regard to the following statement of Celsus, "We see
also those persons who in the market-places perform most disreputable
tricks, and collect crowds around them," whether a manifest falsehood has
not been uttered, and things compared which have no resemblance. He says
that these individuals, to whom he compares us, who "perform the most
disreputable tricks in the market-places and collect crowds, would never
approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to show off their tricks before
them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering
of foolish people, thither do they thrust themselves in and make a
display." Now, in speaking thus he does nothing else than simply load us
with abuse, like the women upon the public streets, whose object is to
slander one another; for we do everything in our power to secure that our
meetings should be composed of wise men, and those things among us which
are especially excellent and divine we then venture to bring forward
publicly in our discussions when we have an abundance of intelligent
hearers, while we conceal and pass by in silence the truths of deeper
import when we see that our audience is composed of simpler minds, which
need such instruction as is figuratively termed "milk."

CHAP. LIII.

   For the word is used by our Paul in writing to the Corinthians, who
were Greeks, and not yet purified in their morals: "I have fed you with
milk, not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet
now are ye able, for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you
envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"(1) Now the same
writer,(2) knowing that there was a certain kind of nourishment better
adapted for the soul, and that the food of those young(3) persons who were
admitted was compared to milk, continues: "And ye are become such as have
need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is
unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But strong meat
belongeth to them  that are of full age, even those who by reason of use
have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."(4) Would then
those who believe these words to be well spoken, suppose that the noble
doctrines of our faith would never be mentioned in an assembly of wise men,
but that wherever (our instructors) see young men, and a mob of slaves, and
a collection of foolish individuals, they bring publicly forward divine and
venerable truths, and before such persons make a display of themselves in
treating of them? But it is clear to him who examines the whole spirit of
our writings, that Celsus is animated with a hatred against the human race
resembling that of the ignorant populace, and gives utterance to these
falsehoods without examination.

CHAP. LIV.

   We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so, that we
do desire to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give to young
men the exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to show to slaves
how they may recover freedom of thought,(5) and be ennobled by the word.
And those amongst us who are the ambassadors of Christianity sufficiently
declare that they are debtors(6) to Greeks and Barbarians, to wise men and
fools, (for they do not deny their obligation to cure the souls even of
foolish persons,) in order that as far as possible they may lay aside their
ignorance, and endeavour to obtain greater prudence, by listening also to
the words of Solomon: "Oh, ye fools, be of an understanding heart,"(7) and
"Who is the most simple among you, let him turn unto me;"(8) and wisdom
exhorts those who are devoid of understanding in the words, "Come, eat of
my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mixed for you. Forsake folly
that ye may live, and correct understanding in knowledge."(1) This too
would I say (seeing it bears on the point),(2) in answer to the statement
of Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? and do
they not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? and do
they not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then, with
philosophers who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue? with
Pythagoras for having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and with
those who recently encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy? Is it
indeed permissible for you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves and foolish
persons to the study of philosophy, but if we do so, we do not act from
philanthropic motives in wishing to heal every rational nature with the
medicine of reason, and to bring them into fellowship with God, the Creator
of all things? These remarks, then, may suffice in answer to what are
slanders rather than accusations(3) on the part of Celsus.

CHAP. LV.

   But as Celsus delights to heap up calumnies against us, and, in
addition to those which he has already uttered, has added others, let us
examine these also, and see whether it be the Christians or Celsus who have
reason to be ashamed of what is said. He asserts, "We see, indeed, in
private houses workers in wool and leather, and fullers, and persons of the
most uninstructed and rustic character, not venturing to utter a word in
the presence of their elders and wiser masters;(4) but when they get hold
of the children privately, and certain women as ignorant as themselves,
they pour forth wonderful statements, to the effect that they ought not to
give heed to their father and to their teachers, but should obey them; that
the former are foolish and stupid, and neither know nor can perform
anything that is really good, being preoccupied with empty trifles; that
they alone know how men ought to live, and that, if the children obey them,
they will both be happy themselves, and will make their home happy also.
And while thus speaking, if they see one of the instructors of youth
approaching, or one of the more intelligent class, or even the father
himself, the more timid among them become afraid, while the more forward
incite the children to throw off the yoke, whispering that in the presence
of father and teachers they neither will nor can explain to them any good
thing, seeing they turn away with aversion from the silliness and stupidity
of such persons as being altogether corrupt, and far advanced in
wickedness, and such as would inflict punishment upon them; but that if
they wish (to avail themselves of their aid,) they must leave their father
and their instructors, and go with the women and their playfellows to the
women's apartments, or to the leather shop, or to the fuller's shop, that
they may attain to perfection;--and by words like these they gain them
over."

CHAP. LVI.

   Observe now how by such statements he depreciates those amongst us who
are teachers of the word, and who strive in every way to raise the soul to
the Creator of all things, and who show that we ought to despise things
"sensible," and "temporal," and "visible," and to do our utmost to reach
communion with God, and the contemplation of things that are "intelligent,"
and "invisible," and a blessed life with God, and the friends of God;
comparing them to "workers in wool in private houses, and to leather-
cutters, and to fullers, and to the most rustic of mankind, who carefully
incite young boys to wickedness, and women to forsake their fathers and
teachers, and follow them." Now let Celsus point out from what wise parent,
or from what teachers, we keep away children and women, and let him
ascertain by comparison among those children and women who are adherents of
our doctrine, whether any of the  opinions which they formerly heard are
better than ours, and in what manner we draw away children and women from
noble and venerable studies, and incite them to worse things. But he will
not be able to make good any such charge against us, seeing that, on the
contrary, we turn away women from a dissolute life, and from being at
variance with those with whom they live, from all mad desires after
theatres and dancing, and from superstition; while we train to habits of
self-restraint boys just reaching the age of puberty, and feeling a desire
for sexual pleasures, pointing out to them not only the disgrace which
attends those sins, but also the state to which the soul of the wicked is
reduced through practices of that kind, and the judgments which it will
suffer, and the punishments which will be inflicted.

CHAP. LVII.

   But who are the teachers whom we call triflers and fools, whose defence
is undertaken by Celsus, as of those who teach better things? (I know not,)
unless he deem those to be good instructors of women, and no triflers, who
invite them to superstition and to unchaste spectacles, and those,
moreover, to be teachers not devoid of sense who lead and drag the young
men to all those disorderly acts which we know are often committed by them.
We indeed call away these also, as far as we can, from the dogmas of
philosophy to our worship of God, by showing forth its excellence aud
purity. But as Celsus, by his statements, has declared that we do not do
so, but that we call only the foolish, I would say to him, "If you had
charged us with withdrawing from the study of philosophy those who were
already preoccupied with it, you would not have spoken the truth, and yet
your charge would have had an appearance of probability; but when you now
say that we draw away our adherents from good teachers, show who are those
other teachers save the teachers of philosophy, or those who have been
appointed to give instruction in some useful branch of study."(1)

   He will be unable, however, to show any such.; while we promise, openly
and not in secret, that they will be happy who live according to the word
of God, and who look to Him in all things, and who do everything, whatever
it is, as if in the presence of God. Are these the instructions of workers
in wool, and of leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated rustics? But
such an assertion he cannot make good.

CHAP. LVIII.

   But those who, in the opinion of Celsus, resemble the workers in wool
in private houses, and the leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated
rustics, will, he alleges, in the presence of father or teachers be
unwilling to speak, or unable to explain to the boys anything that is good.
In answer to which, we would say, What kind of  father, my good sir, and
what kind of teacher, do you mean? If you mean one who approves of virtue,
and turns away from vice, and welcomes what is better, then know, that with
the greatest boldness will we declare our opinions to the children, because
we will be in good repute with such a judge. But if, in the presence of a
father who has a hatred of virtue and goodness, we keep silence, and also
before those who teach what is contrary to sound doctrine, do not blame us
for so doing, since you will blame us without good reason. You, at all
events, in a case where fathers deemed the mysteries of philosophy an idle
and unprofitable occupation for their sons, and for young men in general,
would not, in teaching philosophy, make known its secrets before worthless
parents; but, desiring to keep apart those sons of wicked parents who had
been turned towards the study of philosophy, you would observe the proper
seasons, in order that the doctrines of philosophy might reach the minds of
the young men. And we say the same regarding our teachers. For if we turn
(our hearers) away from those instructors who teach obscene comedies and
licentious iambics, and many other things which neither improve the speaker
nor benefit the bearers (because the latter do not know how to listen to
poetry in a philosophic frame of mind, nor the former how to say to each of
the young men what tends to his profit), we are not, in following such a
course, ashamed to confess what we do. But if you will show me teachers who
train young men for philosophy, and who exercise them in it, I will not
from such turn away young men, but will try to raise them, as those who
have been previously exercised in the whole circle of learning and in
philosophical subjects, to the venerable and lofty height of eloquence
which lies hid from the multitude of Christians, where are discussed topics
of the greatest importance, and where it is demonstrated and shown that
they have been treated philosophically both by the prophets of God and the
apostles of Jesus.

CHAP. LIX.

   Immediately after this, Celsus, perceiving that he has slandered us
with too great bitterness, as if by way of defence expresses himself as
follows: "That I bring no heavier charge than what the truth compels me,
any one may see from the following remarks. Those who invite to
participation in other mysteries, make proclamation as follows: 'Every one
who has clean hands, and a prudent tongue;'(2) others again thus: 'He who
is pure from all pollution, and whose soul is conscious of no evil, and who
has lived well and justly.' Such is the proclamation made by those who
promise purification from sins.(3) But let us hear what kind of persons
these Christians invite. Every one, they say, who is a sinner, who is
devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak generally, whoever
is unfortunate, him will the kingdom of God receive. Do you not call him a
sinner, then, who is unjust, and a thief, and a housebreaker, and a
poisoner, and a committer of sacrilege, and a robber of the dead? What
others would a man invite if he were issuing a proclamation for an assembly
of robbers?" Now, in answer to such statements, we say that it is not the
same thing to invite those who are sick in saul to be cured, and those who
are in health to the knowledge and study of divine things. We, however,
keeping both these things in view, at first invite all men to be healed,
and exhort those who are sinners to come to the consideration of the
doctrines which teach men not to sin, and those who are devoid of
understanding to those which beget wisdom, and those who are children to
rise in their thoughts to manhood, and those who are simply(1) unfortunate
to good fortune,(2) or--which is the more appropriate term to use--to
blessedness.(3) And when those who have been turned towards virtue have
made progress, and have shown that they have been purified by the word, and
have led as far as they can a better life, then and not before do we invite
them to participation in our mysteries. "For we speak wisdom among them
that are perfect."(4)

CHAP. LX.

   And as we teach, moreover, that "wisdom will not enter into the soul of
a base man, nor dwell in a body that is involved in sin,"(5) we say,
Whoever has clean hands, and therefore lifts up holy hands to God, and by
reason of being occupied with elevated and heavenly things, can say, "The
lifting up of my hands is as the evening sacrifice,'(6) let him come to us;
and whoever has a wise tongue through meditating on the law of the Lord day
and night, and by "reason of habit has his senses exercised to discern
between good and evil," let him have no reluctance in coming to the strong
and rational sustenance which is adapted to those who are athletes in piety
and every virtue. And since the grace of God is with all those who love
with a pure affection the teacher of the doctrines of immortality, whoever
is pure not only from all defilement, but from what are regarded as lesser
transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the mysteries of Jesus,
which properly are made known only to the holy and the pure. The initiated
of Celsus accordingly says, "Let him whose soul is conscious of no evil
come." But he who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus,
will say to those who have been purified in heart, "He whose soul has, for
a long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded
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!

CHAP. LXI.

   Not to participation in mysteries, then, and to fellowship in the
wisdom hidden in a mystery, which God ordained before the world to the
glory of His saints,(7) do we invite the wicked man, and the thief, and the
housebreaker, and the prisoner, and the committer of sacrilege, and the
plunderer of the dead, and all those others whom Celsus may enumerate in
his exaggerating style, but such as these we invite to be healed. For there
are in the divinity of the word some helps towards the cure of those who
are sick, respecting which the word says, "They that be whole need not a
physician, but they that are sick;"(8) others, gain, which to the pure in
soul and body exhibit "the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret
since the world began, but now is made manifest by the Scriptures of the
prophets,"(9) and "by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,"(10) which
"appearing" is manifested to each one of those who are perfect, and which
enlightens the reason" in the true" knowledge of things. But as he
exaggerates the charges against us, adding, after his list of those vile
individuals whom he has mentioned, this remark, "What other persons would a
robber summon to himself by proclamation?" we answer such a question by
saying that a robber summons around him individuals of such a character, in
order to make use of their villany against the men whom they desire to slay
and plunder. A Christian, on the other hand, even though he invite those
whom the robber invites, invites them to a very different vocation, viz. to
bind up these wounds by His word, and to apply to the soul, festering amid
evils, the drugs obtained from the word, and which are analogous to the
wine and oil, and plasters, and other healing appliances which belong to
the art of medicine.

CHAP. LXII.

   In the next place, throwing a slur(13) upon the exhortations spoken and
written to those who have led wicked lives, and which invite them to
repentance and reformation of heart, he asserts that we say "that it was to
sinners that God has been sent." Now this statement of his is much the same
as if he were to find fault with certain persons for saying that on account
of the sick who were living in a city, a physician had been sent them by a
very benevolent monarch.(14) God the Word was sent, indeed, as a physician
to sinners, but as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are already
pure and who sin no more. But Celsus, unable to see this distinction,--for
he had no desire to be animated with a love of truth,--remarks, "Why was he
not sent to those who were without sin? What evil is it not to have
committed sin?" To which we reply, that if by those "who were without sin"
he means those who sin no more, then our Saviour Jesus was sent even to
such, but not as a physician. While if by those "who were without sin" he
means such as have never at any time sinned,--for he made no distinction in
his statement,--we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without
sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in
Christ Jesus,(1) who "did no sin." It is with a malicious intent, indeed,
that Celsus says of us that we assert that "God will receive the
unrighteousness man if he humble himself on account of his wickedness, but
that He will not receive the righteous man, although he look up to Him,
(adorned) with virtue from the beginning." Now we assert that it is
impossible for a man to look up to God (adorned) with virtue from the
beginning. For wickedness must necessarily first exist in men. As Paul also
says, "When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."(2) Moreover, we
do not teach regarding the unrighteous man, that it is sufficient for him
to humble himself on account of his wickedness in order to his being
accepted by God, but that God will accept him if, after passing
condemnation upon himself for his past conduct, he walk humbly on account
of it, and in a becoming manner for the time to come.

CHAP. LXIII.

   After this, not understanding how it has been said that "every one who
exalted himself shall be abased;"(3) nor (although taught even by Plato)
that "the good and virtuous man walketh humbly and orderly;" and ignorant,
moreover, that we give the injunction, "Humble yourselves, therefore, under
the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time;"(4) he says that
"those persons who preside properly over a trial make those individuals who
bewail before them their evil deeds to cease from their piteous wailings,
lest their decisions should be determined rather by compassion than by a
regard to truth; whereas God does not decide in accordance with truth, but
in accordance with flattery."(5) Now, what words of flattery and piteous
walling are contained in the Holy Scriptures when the sinner says in his
prayers to God, "I have acknowledged my sin, and mine iniquity have I not
hid. I said, I will confess my transgression to the Lord," etc., etc.? For
is he able to show that a procedure of this kind is not adapted to the
conversion of sinners, who humble themselves in their prayers under the
hand of God? And, becoming confused by his efforts to accuse us, he
contradicts himself; appearing at one time to know a man "without sin," and
"a righteous man, who can look up to God (adorned) with virtue from the
beginning;" and at another time accepting our statement that there is no
man altogether righteous, or without sin;(6) for, as if he admitted its
truth, he remarks, "This is indeed apparently true, that somehow the human
race is naturally inclined to sin." In the next place, as if all men were
not invited by the word, he says, "All men, then, without distinction,
ought to be invited, since all indeed are sinners." And yet, in the
preceding pages, we have pointed out the words of Jesus: "Come unto Me, all
ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."(7) All men,
therefore, labouring and being heavy laden on account of the nature of sin,
are invited to the rest spoken of in the word of God, "for God sent His
word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions."(8)

CHAP. LXIV.

   But since he says, in addition to this, "What is this preference of
sinners over others?" and makes other remarks of a similar nature, we have
to reply that absolutely a sinner is not preferred before one who is not a
sinner; but that sometimes a sinner, who has become conscious of his own
sin, and for that reason comes to repentance, being humbled on account of
his sins, is preferred before one who is accounted a lesser sinner, but who
does not consider himself one, but exalts himself on the ground of certain
good qualities which he thinks he possesses, and is greatly elated on their
account. And this is manifest to those who are willing to peruse the
Gospels in a spirit of fairness, by the parable of the publican, who said,
"Be merciful to me a sinner,"(9) and of the Pharisee who boasted with a
certain wicked self-conceit in the words, "I thank Thee that I am not as
other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican."(10) For Jesus subjoins to his narrative of them both the words:
"This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every
one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself
shall be exalted."(1) We utter no blasphemy, then, against God, neither are
we guilty of falsehood, when we teach that every man, whoever he may be, is
conscious of human infirmity in comparison with the greatness of God, and
that we must ever ask from Him, who alone is able to supply our
deficiencies, what is wanting to our (mortal) nature.

CHAP. LXV.

   He imagines, however, that we utter these exhortations for the
conversion of sinners, because we are able to gain over no one who is
really good and righteous, and therefore open our gates to the most unholy
and abandoned of men. But if any one will fairly observe our assemblies we
can present a greater number of those who have been converted from not a
very wicked life, than of those who have committed the most abominable
sins. For naturally those who are conscious to themselves of better things,
desire that those promises may be true which are declared by God regarding
the reward of the righteous, and thus assent more readily to the statements
(of Scripture) than those do who have led very wicked lives, and who are
prevented by their very consciousness (of evil) from admitting that they
will be punished by the Judge of all with such punishment as befits those
who have sinned so greatly, and as would not be inflicted by the Judge of
all contrary to fight reason? Sometimes, also, when very abandoned men are
willing to accept the doctrine of (future) punishment, on account of the
hope which is based upon repentance, they are prevented from so doing by
their habit of sinning, being constantly dipped,(3) and, as it were,
dyed(4) in wickedness, and possessing no longer the power to turn from it
easily to a proper life, and one regulated according to right reason. And
although Celsus observes this, he nevertheless, I know not why, expresses
himself in the following terms: "And yet, indeed, it is manifest to every
one that no one by chastisement, much less by merciful treatment, could
effect a complete change in those who are sinners both by nature and
custom, for to change nature is an exceedingly difficult thing. But they
who are without sin are partaken of a better life."

CHAP. LXVI.

   Now here Celsus appears to me to have committed a great error, in
refusing to those who are sinners by nature, and also by habit, the
possibility of a complete transformation, alleging that they cannot be
cured even by punishment. For it clearly appears that all men are inclined
to sin by nature,(5) and some not only by nature but by practice, while not
all men are incapable of an entire transformation. For there are found in
every philosophical sect, and in the word of God, persons who are related
to have undergone so great a change that they may be proposed as a model of
excellence of life. Among the names of the heroic age some mention Hercules
and Ulysses, among those of later times, Socrates, and of those who have
lived very recently, Musonius.(6) Not only against us, then, did Celsus
utter the calumny, when he said that "it was manifest to every one that
those who were given to sin by nature and habit could not by any means--
even by punishments--be completely changed for the better," but also
against the noblest names in philosophy, who have not denied that the
recovery of virtue was a possible thing for men. But although he did not
express his meaning with exactness, we shall nevertheless, though giving
his words a more favourable construction, convict him of unsound reasoning.
For his words were: "Those who are inclined to sin by nature and habit, no
one could completely reform even by chastisement;" and his words, as we
understood them, we refuted to the best of our ability.(7)

CHAP. LXVII.

   It is probable, however, that he meant to convey some such meaning as
this, that those who were both by nature and habit given to the commission
of those sins which are committed by the most abandoned of men, could not
be completely transformed even by punishment. And yet this is shown to be
false from the history of certain philosophers. For who is there that would
not rank among the most abandoned of men the individual who somehow
submitted to yield himself to his master, when he placed him in a
brothel,(8) that he might allow himself to be polluted by any one who
liked? And yet such a circumstance is related of Phaedo! And who will not
agree that he who burst, accompanied with a flute-player and a party of
revellers, his profligate associates, into the school of the venerable
Xenocrates, to insult a man who was the admiration of his friends, was not
one of the greatest miscreants(9) among mankind? Yet, notwithstanding this,
reason was powerful enough to effect their conversion, and to enable them
to make such progress in philosophy, that the one was deemed worthy by
Plato to recount the discourse of Socrates on immortality, and to record
his firmness in prison, when he evinced his contempt of the hemlock, and
with all fearlessness and tranquillity of mind treated of subjects so
numerous and important, that it is difficult even for those to follow them
who are giving their utmost attention, and who are disturbed by no
distraction; while Polemon, on the other hand, who from a profligate became
a man of most temperate life, was successor in the school of Xenocrates, so
celebrated for his venerable character. Celsus then does not speak the
truth when he says "that sinners by nature and habit cannot be completely
reformed even by chastisement."

CHAP. LXVIII.

   That philosophical discourses, however, distinguished by orderly
arrangement and elegant expression, (1) should produce such results in the
case of those individuals just enumerated, and upon others (2) who have led
wicked lives, is not at all to be wondered at. But when we consider that
those discourses, which Celsus terms "vulgar," (3) are filled with power,
as if they were spells, and see that they at once convert multitudes from a
life of licentiousness to one of extreme regularity, (4) and from a life of
wickedness to a better, and from a state of cowardice or unmanliness to one
of such high-toned courage as to lead men to despise even death through the
piety which shows itself within them, why should we not justly admire the
power which they contain? For the words of those who at the first assumed
the office of (Christian) ambassadors, and who gave their labours to rear
up the Churches of God,--nay, their preaching also,--were accompanied with
a persuasive power, though not like that found among those who profess the
philosophy of Plato, or of any other merely human philosopher, which
possesses no other qualities than those of human nature. But the
demonstration which followed the words of the apostles of Jesus was given
from God, and was accredited s by the Spirit and by power. And therefore
their word ran swiftly and speedily, or rather the word of God through
their instrumentality, transformed numbers of persons who had been sinners
both by nature and habit, whom no one could have reformed by punishment,
but who were changed by the word, which moulded and transformed them
according to its pleasure.

CHAP. LXIX.

   Celsus continues in his usual manner, asserting that "to change a
nature entirely is exceedingly difficult." We, however, who know of only
one nature in every rational soul, and who maintain that none has been
created evil by the Author of all things, but that many have become wicked
through education, and perverse example, and surrounding influences, (6) so
that wickedness has been naturalized (7) in some individuals, are persuaded
that for the word of God to change a nature in which evil has been
naturalized is not only not impossible, but is even a work of no  very
great difficulty, if a man only believe that he must entrust himself to the
God of all things, and do everything with a view to please Him with whom it
cannot be (8) that

   "Both good and bad are in the same honour,
   Or that the idle man and he who laboured much Perish alike." (9)

But even if it be exceedingly difficult to effect a change in some persons,
the cause must be held to lie in their own will, which is reluctant to
accept the belief that the God over all things is a just Judge of all the
deeds done during life. For deliberate choice and practice (10) avail much
towards the accomplishment of things which appear to be very difficult,
and, to speak hyperbolically, almost impossible. Has the nature of man,
when desiring to walk along a rope extended in the air through the middle
of the theatre, and to carry at the same time numerous and heavy weights,
been able by practice and attention to accomplish such a feat; but when
desiring to live in conformity with the practice of virtue, does it find it
impossible to do so, although formerly it may have been exceedingly wicked?
See whether he who holds such views does not bring a charge against the
nature of the Creator of the rational animal" rather than against the
creature, if He has formed the nature of man with powers for the attainment
of things of such difficulty, and of no utility whatever, but has rendered
it incapable of securing its own blessedness. But these remarks may suffice
as an answer to the assertion that "entirely to change a nature is
exceedingly difficult." He alleges, in the next place, that "they who are
without sin are partakers of a better life;" not making it clear what he
means by "those who are without sin," whether those who are so from the
beginning (of their lives), or those who become so by a transformation. Of
those who were so from the beginning of their lives, there cannot  possibly
be any; while those who are so after a transformation (of heart) are found
to be few in number, being those who have become so after giving in their
alIegiance to the saving word. And they were not such when they gave in
their allegiance. For, apart from the aid of the word, and that too the
word of perfection, it is impossible for a man to become free from sin.

CHAP. LXX.

   In the next place, he objects to the statement, as if it were
maintained by us, that "God will be able to do all things," not seeing even
here how these words are meant, and what "the all things" are which are
included in it, and how it is said that God "will be able." But on these
matters it is not necessary now to speak; for although he might with a show
of reason have opposed this proposition, he has not done so. Perhaps he did
not understand the arguments which might be plausibly used against it, or
if he did, he saw the answers that might be returned. Now in our judgment
God can do everything which it is possible for Him to do without ceasing to
be God, and good, and wise. But Celsus asserts--not comprehending the
meaning of the expression "God can do all things "--" that He will not
desire to do anything wicked," admitting that He has the power, but not the
will, to commit evil. We, on the contrary, maintain that as that which by
nature possesses the property of sweetening other things through its own
inherent sweetness cannot produce bitterness contrary to its own peculiar
nature, (1) nor that whose nature it is to produce light through its being
light can cause darkness; so neither is God able to commit wickedness, for
the power of doing evil is contrary to His deity and its omnipotence.
Whereas if any one among existing things is able to commit wickedness from
being inclined to wickedness by nature, it does so from not having in its
nature the ability not to do evil.

CHAP. LXXI.

   He next assumes what is not granted by the more rational class of
believers, but what perhaps is considered to be true by some who are devoid
of intelligence,--viz., that "God, like those who are overcome with pity,
being Himself overcome, alleviates the sufferings of the wicked through
pity for their wailings, and casts off the good, who do nothing of that
kind, which is the height of injustice." Now, in our judgment, God lightens
the suffering of no wicked man who has not betaken himself to a virtuous
life, and casts off no one who is already good, nor yet alleviates the
suffering of any one who mourns, simply because he utters lamentation, or
takes pity upon him, to use the word pity in its more common acceptation.
(2) But those who have passed severe condemnation upon themselves because
of their sins, and who, as on that account, lament and bewail themselves as
lost, so far as their previous conduct is concerned, and who have
manifested a satisfactory change, are received by God on account of their
repentance, as those who have undergone a transformation from a life of
great wickedness. For virtue, taking up her abode in the souls of these
persons, and expelling the wickedness which had previous possession of
them, produces an oblivion of the past. And even although virtue do not
effect an entrance, yet if a considerable progress take place in the soul,
even that is sufficient, in the proportion that it is progressive, to drive
out and destroy the flood of wickedness, so that it almost ceases to remain
in the soul.

CHAP. LXXII.

   In the next place, speaking as in the person of a teacher of our
doctrine, he expresses himself as follows: "Wise men reject what we say,
being led into error, and ensnared by their wisdom." In reply to which we
say that, since wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human things and of
their causes, or, as it is defined by the word of God, "the breath of the
power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty;
and the brightness of the everlasting light, and the unspotted mirror of
the power of God, and the image of His goodness," (3) no one who was really
wise would reject what is said by a Christian acquainted with the
principles of Christianity, or would be led into error, or ensnared by it.
For true wisdom does not mislead, but ignorance does, while of existing
things knowledge alone is permanent, and the truth which is derived from
wisdom. But if, contrary to the definition of wisdom, you call any one
whatever who dogmatizes with sophistical opinions wise, we answer that in
conformity with what you call wisdom, such an one rejects the words of God,
being misled and ensnared by plausible sophisms. And since, according to
our doctrine, wisdom is not the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of
evil, so to speak, is in those who hold false opinions and who are deceived
by them, I would therefore in such persons term it ignorance rather than
wisdom.

CHAP. LXXIII.

   After this he again slanders the ambassador of Christianity, and gives
out regarding him that he relates "ridiculous things," although he does not
show or clearly point out what are the things which he calls "ridiculous."
And in his slanders he says that "no wise man believes the Gospel, being
driven away by the multitudes who adhere to it." And in this he acts like
one who should say that owing to the multitude of those ignorant persons
who are brought into subjection to the laws, no wise man would yield
obedience to Solon, for example, or to Lycurgus, or Zaleucus, or any other
legislator, and especially if by wise man he means one who is wise (by
living) in conformity with virtue. For, as with regard to these ignorant
persons, the legislators, according to their ideas of utility, caused them
to be surrounded with appropriate guidance and laws, so God, legislating
through Jesus Christ for men in all parts of the world, brings: to Himself
even those who are not wise in the way in which it is possible for such
persons to be brought to a better life. And God, well knowing this, as we
have already shown in the preceding pages, says in the books of Moses "They
have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked Me
to anger with their idols: and I will move them to jealousy with those
which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish
nation." (1) And Paul also, knowing this, said, "But God hath chosen the
foolish things of the world to confound the wise," (2) calling, in a
general way, wise all who appear to have made advances in knowledge, but
have fallen into an atheistic polytheism, since "professing themselves to
be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God
into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed
beasts, and creeping things." (3)

CHAP. LXXIV.

   He accuses the Christian teacher, moreover of" seeking after the
unintelligent." In answer we ask, Whom do you mean by the "unintelligent?"
For, to speak accurately, every wicked man is "unintelligent." If then by
"unintelligent" you mean the wicked, do you, in drawing men to philosophy,
seek to gain the wicked or the virtuous? (4) But it is impossible to gain
the virtuous, because they have already given themselves to philosophy. The
wicked, then, (you try to gain;) but if they are wicked, are they
"unintelligent?" And many such you seek to win over to philosophy, and you
therefore seek the "unintelligent." But if I seek after those who are thus
termed "unintelligent," I act like a benevolent physician, who should seek
after the sick in order to help and cure them. If, bow-ever, by
"unintelligent" you mean persons who  are not clever, (5) but the inferior
class of men intellectually, (6) I shall answer that I endeavour to improve
such also to the best of my ability, although I would not desire to build
up the Christian community out of such materials. For I seek in preference
those who are more clever and acute, because they are able to comprehend
the meaning of the hard sayings, and of those passages in the law, and
prophecies, and Gospels, which are expressed with obscurity, and which you
have despised as not containing anything worthy of notice, because you have
not ascertained the meaning which they contain, nor tried to enter into the
aim of the writers.

CHAP. LXXV.

   But as he afterwards says that "the teacher of Christianity acts like a
person who promises to restore patients to bodily health, but who prevents
them from consulting skilled physicians, by whom his ignorance would be
exposed," we shall inquire in reply, "What are the physicians to whom you
refer, from whom we turn away ignorant individuals.? For you do not suppose
that we exhort those to embrace the Gospel who are devoted to philosophy,
so that you would regard the latter as the physicians from whom we keep
away such as we invite to come to the word of God." He indeed will make no
answer, because he cannot name the physicians; or else he will be obliged
to betake himself to those of them who are ignorant, and who of their own
accord servilely yield themselves to the worship of many gods, and to
whatever other opinions are entertained by ignorant individuals. In either
case, then, he will be shown to have employed to no purpose in his argument
the illustration of "one who keeps others away from skilled physicians."
But if, in order to preserve from the philosophy of Epicurus, and from such
as are considered physicians after his system, those who are deceived by
them, why should we not be acting most reasonably in keeping such away from
a dangerous disease caused by the physicians of Celsus,--that, viz., which
leads to the annihilation of providence, and the introduction of pleasure
as a good? But let it be conceded that we do keep away those whom we
encourage to become our disciples from other philosopher-physicians,--from
the Peripatetics, for example, who deny the existence of providence and the
relation of Deity to man,--why shall we not piously train (7) and heal
those who have been thus encouraged, persuading them to devote themselves
to the God of all things, and free those who yield obedience to us from the
great wounds inflicted by the words of such as are deemed to be
philosophers? Nay, let it also be admitted that-we turn away from
physicians of the sect of the Stoics, who introduce a corruptible god, and
assert that his essence consists of a body, which is capable of being
changed and altered in all its parts, (1) and who also maintain that all
things will one day perish, and that God alone will be left; why shall we
not even thus emancipate our subjects from evils, and bring them by pious
arguments to devote themselves to the Creator, and to admire the Father of
the Christian system, who has so arranged that instruction of the most
benevolent kind, and fitted for the conversion of souls, (2) should be
distributed throughout the whole human race? Nay, if we should cure those
who have fallen into the folly of believing in the transmigration of souls
through the teaching of physicians, who will have it that the rational
nature descends sometimes into all kinds of irrational animals, and
sometimes into that state of being which is incapable of using the
imagination, (3) why should we not improve the souls of our subjects by
means of a doctrine which does not teach that a state of insensibility or
irrationalism is produced in the wicked instead of punishment, but which
shows that the labours and chastisements inflicted upon the wicked by God
are a kind of medicines leading to conversion? For those who are
intelligent Christians, (4) keeping this in view, deal with the simple-
minded, as parents do with very young s children. We do not betake
ourselves then to young persons and silly rustics, saying to them, "Flee
from physicians." Nor do we say, "See that none of you lay hold of
knowledge;" nor do we assert that "knowledge is an evil;" nor are we mad
enough to say that "knowledge causes men to lose their soundness of mind."
We would not even say that any one ever perished through wisdom; and
although we give instruction, we never say, "Give heed to me," but "Give
heed to the God of all things, and to Jesus, the giver of instruction
concerning Him." And none of us is so great a braggart (6) as to say what
Celsus put in the mouth of one of our teachers to his acquaintances, "I
alone will save you." Observe here the lies which he utters against us!
Moreover, we do not assert that "true physicians destroy those whom they
promise to cure."

CHAP. LXXVI.

   And he produces a second illustration to our disadvantage, saying that
"our teacher acts like a drunken man, who, entering a company of drunkards,
should accuse those who are sober of being drunk." But let him show, say
from the writings of Paul, that the apostle of Jesus gave way to
drunkenness, and that his words were not those of soberness; or from the
writings of John, that his thoughts do not breathe a spirit of temperance
and of freedom from the intoxication of evil. No one, then, who is of sound
mind, and teaches the doctrines of Christianity, gets drunk with wine; but
Celsus utters these calumnies against us in a spirit very unlike that of a
philosopher. Moreover, let Celsus say who those "sober" persons are whom
the ambassadors of Christianity accuse. For in our judgment all are
intoxicated who address themselves to inanimate objects as to God. And why
do I say "intoxicated?" "Insane" would be the more appropriate word for
those who hasten to temples and worship images or animals as divinities.
And they too are not less insane who think that images, fashioned by men of
worthless and sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon
genuine divinities. (7)

CHAP. LXXVII.

   He next likens our teacher to one suffering from ophthalmia, and his
disciples to those suffering from the same disease, and says that "such an
one amongst a company of those who are afflicted with ophthalmia, accuses
those who are sharp-sighted of being blind." Who, then, would we ask, O
Greeks, are they who in our judgment do not see, save those who are unable
to look up from the exceeding greatness of the world and its contents, and
from the beauty of created things, and to see that they ought to worship,
and admire, and reverence Him alone who made these things, and that it is
not befitting to treat with reverence anything contrived by man, and
applied to the honour of God, whether it be without a reference to the
Creator, or with one? (8) For, to compare with that illimitable excellence,
which surpasses all created being, things which ought not to be brought
into comparison with it, is the act of those whose understanding is
darkened. We do not then say that those who are sharp-sighted are suffering
from ophthalmia or blindness; but we assert that those who, in ignorance of
God, give themselves to temples and images, and so-called sacred seasons,
(1) are blinded in their minds, and especially when, in addition to their
impiety, they live also in licentiousness, not even inquiring after any
honourable work whatever, but doing everything that is of a disgraceful
character.

CHAP. LXXVIII.

   After having brought against us charges of so serious a kind, he wishes
to make it appear that, although he has others to adduce, he passes them by
in silence. His words are as follows: "These charges I have to bring
against them, and others of a similar nature, not to enumerate them one by
one, and I affirm that they are in error, and that they act insolently
towards God, in order to lead on wicked men by empty hopes, and to persuade
them to despise better things, saying that if they refrain from them it
will be better for them." In answer to which, it might be said that from
the power which shows itself in those who are converted to Christianity, it
is not at all the "wicked" who are won over to the Gospel, as the more
simple class of persons, and, as many would term them, the "unpolished."
(2) For such individuals, through fear of the punishments that are
threatened, which arouses and exhorts them to refrain from those actions
which are followed by punishments, strive to yield themselves up to the
Christian religion, being influenced by the power of the word to such a
degree, that through fear of what are called in the word "everlasting
punishments," they despise all the tortures which are devised against them
among men,--even death itself, with countless other evils,--which no wise
man would say is the act of persons of wicked mind. How can temperance and
sober-mindedness, or benevolence and liberality, be practised by a man of
wicked mind? Nay, even the fear of God cannot be felt by such an one, with
respect to which, because it is useful to the many, the Gospel encourages
those who are not yet able to choose that which ought to be chosen for its
own sake, to select it as the greatest blessing, and one above all promise;
for this principle cannot be implanted in him who prefers to live in
wickedness.

CHAP. LXXIX.

   But if in these matters any one were to imagine that it is superstition
rather than wickedness which appears in the multitude of those who believe
the word, and should charge our doctrine with making men superstitious, we
shall answer him by saying that, as a certain legislators replied to the
question of one who asked him whether he had enacted for his citizens the
best laws, that he had not given them absolutely the best, but the best
which they were capable of receiving; so it might be said by the Father of
the Christian doctrine, I have given the best laws and instruction for the
improvement of morals of which the many were capable, not threatening
sinners with imaginary labours and chastisements, but with such as are
real, and necessary to be applied for the correction of those who offer
resistance, although they do not at all understand the object of him who
inflicts the punishment, nor the effect of the labours. For the doctrine of
punishment is both attended with utility, and is agreeable to truth, and is
stated in obscure terms with advantage. (4) Moreover, as for the most part
it is not the wicked whom the ambassadors of Christianity gain over,
neither do we insult God. For we speak regarding Him both what is true, and
what appears to be clear to the multitude, but not so clear to them as it
is to those few who investigate the truths of the Gospel in a philosophical
manner.

CHAP. LXXX.

   Seeing, however, that Celsus alleges that "Christians are won over by
us through vain hopes," we thus' reply to him when he finds fault with our
doctrine of the blessed life, and of communion with God: "As for you, good
sir, they also are won over by vain hopes who have accepted the doctrine of
Pythagoras and Plato regarding the soul, that it is its nature to ascend to
the vaults of heaven, and in the super-celestial space to behold the sights
which are seen by the blessed spectators above. According to you, O Celsus,
they also who have accepted the doctrine of the duration of the soul (after
death), and who lead a life through which they become heroes, and make
their abodes with the gods, are won over by vain hopes. Probably also they
who are persuaded that the soul comes (into the body) from without, and
that it will be withdrawn from the power of death, (6) would be said by
Celsus to be won over by empty hopes. Let him then come forth to the
contest, no longer concealing the sect to which he belongs, but confessing
himself to be an Epicurean, and let him meet the arguments, which are not
lightly advanced among Greeks and Barbarians, regarding the immortality of
the soul, or its duration (after death), or the immortality of the thinking
principle;, and let him prove that these are words which deceive with empty
hopes those who give their aSsent to them; but that the adherents of his
philosophical system are pure from empty hopes, and that they indeed lead
to hopes of good, or--what is more in keeping with his opinions--give birth
to no hope at all, on account of the immediate and complete destruction of
the soul (after death). Unless, perhaps, Celsus and the Epicureans will
deny that it is a vain hope which they entertain regarding their end,--
pleasure,--which, according to them, is the supreme good, and which
consists in the permanent health of the body, and the hope regarding it
which is entertained by Epicurus. (2)

CHAP. LXXXI.

   And do not suppose that it is not in keeping with the Christian
religion for me to have accepted, against Celsus, the opinions of those
philosophers who have treated of the immortality or after-duration of the
soul; for, holding certain views in common with them, we shall more
conveniently establish our position, that the future life of blessedness
shall be for those only who  have accepted the religion which is according
to Jesus, and that devotion towards the Creator of all things which is pure
and sincere, and un-mingled with any created thing whatever. And let him
who likes show what "better things" we  persuade men to despise, and let
him compare the blessed end with God in Christ,--that is, the word, and the
wisdom, and all virtue;-which, according to our view, shall be bestowed, by
the gift of God, on those who have lived a pure and blameless life, and who
have felt a single and undivided love for the God of all things, with that
end which is to follow according to the teaching of each philosophic sect,
whether it be Greek or Barbarian, or according to the professions of
religious mysteries; (3) and let him prove that the end which is predicted
by any of the others is superior to that which we promise, and consequently
that that is true, and ours not befitting the gift of God, nor those who
have lived a good life; or let him prove that these words were not spoken
by the divine Spirit, who filled the souls of the holy prophets. And let
him who likes show that those words which are acknowledged among all men to
be human, are superior to those which are proved to be divine, and uttered
by inspiration. (4) And what are the "better" things from which we teach
those who receive them that it would be better to abstain? For if it be not
arrogant so to speak, it is self-evident that nothing can be denied which
is better than to entrust oneself to the God of all, and yield oneself up
to the doctrine which raises us above all created things, and brings us,
through the animate and living word--which is also living wisdom and the
Son of God--to God who is over all. However, as the third book of our
answers to the treatise of Celsus has extended to a sufficient length, we
shall here bring our present remarks to a close, and in what is to follow
shall meet what Celsus has subsequently written.


Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland beginning in
1867. (ANF 4, Roberts and Donaldson). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
  Provided courtesy of:

       EWTN On-Line Services
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.