(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 IV-V.

BOOK IV.

CHAP. I.

   HAVING, in the three preceding books, fully stated what occurred to us
by way of answer to the treatise of Celsus, we now, reverend Ambrosius,
with prayer to God through Christ, offer this fourth book as a reply to
what follows. And we pray that words may be given us, as it is written in
the book of Jeremiah that the Lord said to the prophet: "Behold, I have put
My words in thy mouth as fire. See, I have set thee this day over the
nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to
destroy, and to throw down, and to build and to plant." (1) For we need
words now which will root out of every wounded soul the reproaches uttered
against the truth by this treatise of Celsus, or which proceed from
opinions like his. And we need also thoughts which will pull down all
edifices based on false opinions, and especially the edifice raised by
Celsus in his work which resembles the building of those who said "Come,
let us build us a city, and a tower whose top shall reach to heaven." (2)
Yea, we even require a wisdom which will throw down all high things that
rise against the knowledge of God, (3) and especially that height of
arrogance which Celsus displays against us. And in the next place, as we
must not stop with rooting out and pulling down the hindrances which have
just been mentioned, but must, in room of what has been rooted out, plant
the plants of "God's husbandry;" (4) mad in place of what has been pulled
down, rear up the building of God, and the temple of His glory,--we must
for that reason pray also to the Lord, who bestowed the gifts named in the
book of Jeremiah, that He may grant even to us words adapted both for
building up the (temple) of Christ, and for planting the spiritual law, and
the prophetic words referring to the same. (5) And above all is it
necessary to show, as against the assertions of Celsus which follow those
he has already made, that the prophecies regarding Christ are true
predictions. For, arraying himself at the same time against  both parties--
against the Jews on the one hand, who deny that the advent of Christ has
taken place, but who expect it as future, and against Christians on the
other, who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ spoken of in prophecy--he
makes the following statement:--

CHAP. II.

   "But that certain Christians and (all) Jews should maintain, the former
that there has already descended, the latter that there will descend, upon
the earth a certain God, or Son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of
the earth righteous, (6) is a most shameless assertion, and one the
refutation of which does not need many words." Now here he appears to
pronounce correctly regarding not "certain" of the Jews, but all of them,
that they imagine that there is a certain (God) who will descend upon the
earth; and with regard to Christians, that certain of them say that He has
already come down. For he means those who prove from the Jewish Scriptures
that the advent of Christ has already taken place, and he seems to know
that there are certain heretical sects which deny that Christ Jesus was
predicted by the prophets. In the preceding pages, however, we have already
discussed, to the best of our ability, the question of Christ having been
the subject of prophecy, and therefore, to avoid tautology, we do not
repeat much that might be advanced upon this  head. Observe, now, that if
he had wished with a kind of apparent force (7) to subvert faith in the
prophetic writings, either with regard to the future or past advent of
Christ, he ought to have set forth the prophecies themselves which we
Christians and Jews quote in our discussions with each other. For in this
way he would have appeared to turn aside those who are carried away by the
plausible character (1) of the prophetic statements, as he regards it, from
assenting to their truth, and from believing, on account of these
prophecies, that Jesus is the Christ; whereas now, being unable to answer
the prophecies relating to Christ, or else not knowing at all what are the
prophecies relating to Him, he brings forward no prophetic declaration,
although there are countless numbers which refer to Christ; but he thinks
that he prefers an accusation against the prophetic Scriptures, while he
does not even state what he himself would call their "plausible character!"
He is not, however, aware that it is not at all the Jews who say that
Christ will descend as a God, or the Son of a God, as we have shown in the
foregoing pages. And when he asserts that "he is said by us to have already
come, but by the Jews that his advent as Messiah (2) is still future," he
appears by the very charge to censure our statement as  one that is most
shameless, and which needs no lengthened refutation.

CHAP. III.

   And he continues: "What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part
of God?" not observing that, according to our teaching, the meaning of the
descent is pre-eminently to convert what are called in the Gospel the lost
"sheep of the house of Israel;" and secondly, to take away from them, on
account of their disobedience, what is called the "kingdom of God," and to
give to other husbandmen than the ancient Jews, viz. to the Christians, who
will render to God the fruits of His kingdom in due season (each action
being a "fruit of the kingdom"). (3) We shall therefore, out of a greater
number, select a few remarks by way of answer to the question of Celsus,
when he says, "What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part of God?"
And Celsus here returns to himself an answer which would have been given
neither by Jews nor by us, when he asks, "Was it in order to learn what
goes on amongst men?" For not one of us asserts that it was in order to
learn what goes on amongst men that Christ entered into this life.
Immediately after, however, as if some would reply that it was "in order to
learn what goes on among men," he makes this objection to his own
statement: "Does he not know all things?" Then, as if we were to answer
that He does know all things, he raises a new question, saying, "Then he
does know, but does not make (men) better, nor is it possible for him by
means of his divine power to make (men) better." Now all this on his part
is silly talk; (4) for God, by means of His word, which is continually
passing from generation to generation into holy souls, and constituting
them friends of God and prophets, does improve those who listen to His
words; and by the coming of Christ He improves, through the doctrine of
Christianity, not those who are unwilling, but those who have chosen the
better life, and that which is pleasing to God. I do not know, moreover,
what kind of improvement Celsus wished to take place when he raised the
objection, asking, "Is it then not possible for him, by means of his divine
power, to make (men) better, unless he send some one for that special
purpose?" (5) Would he then have the improvement to take place by God's
filling the minds of men with new ideas, removing at once the (inherent)
wickedness, and implanting virtue (in its stead)? (6) Another person now
would inquire whether this was not inconsistent or impossible in the very
nature of things; we, however, would say, "Grant it to be so, and let it be
possible." Where, then, is our free will? (7) and what credit is there in
assenting to the truth? or how is the rejection of what is false
praiseworthy? But even if it were once granted that such a course was not
only possible, but could be accomplished with propriety (by God), why would
not one rather inquire (asking a question like that of Celsus) why it was
not possible for God, by means of His divine power, to create men who
needed no improvement, but who were of themselves virtuous and perfect,
evil being altogether non-existent? These questions may perplex ignorant
and foolish individuals, but not him who sees into the nature of things;
for if you take away the spontaneity of virtue, you destroy its essence.
But it would need an entire treatise to discuss these matters; and on this
subject the Greeks have expressed themselves at great length in their works
on providence. They truly would not say what Celsus has expressed in words,
that "God knows (all things) indeed, but does not make (men) better, nor is
able to do so by His divine power." We ourselves have spoken in many parts
of our writings on these points to the best of our ability, and the Holy
Scriptures have established the same to those who are able to understand
them.

CHAP. IV.

   The argument which Celsus employs against us and the Jews will be
turned against himself thus: My good sir, does the God who is over all
things know what takes place among men, or does He not know? Now if you
admit the existence of a God and of providence, as your treatise indicates,
He must of necessity know. And if He does know, why does He not make (men)
better? Is it obligatory, then, on us to defend God's procedure in not
making men better, although He knows their state, but not equally binding
on you, who do not distinctly show by your treatise that you are an
Epicurean, but pretend to recognise a providence, to explain why God,
although knowing all that takes place among men, does not make them better,
nor by divine power liberate all men from evil? We are not ashamed,
however, to say that God is constantly sending (instructors) in order to
make men better; for there are to be found amongst men reasons (1) given by
God which exhort them to enter on a better life. But there are many
diversities amongst those who serve God, and they are few in number who are
perfect and pure ambassadors of the truth, and who produce a complete
reformation, as did Moses and the prophets. But above all these, great was
the reformation effected by Jesus, who desired to heal not only those who
lived in one corner of the world, but as far as in Him lay, men in every
country, for He came as the Saviour of all men.

CHAP. V.

   The illustrious (2) Celsus, taking occasion I know not from what, next
raises an additional objection against us, as if we asserted that "God
Himself will come down to men." He imagines also that it follows from this,
that "He has left His own abode;" for he does not know the power of God,
and that "the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, and that which
upholdeth all things hath knowledge of the voice." (3) Nor is he able to
understand the words, "Do I not fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD." (4)
Nor does he see that, according to the doctrine of Christianity, we all "in
Him live, and move, and have our being," (5) as Paul also taught in his
address to the Athenians; and therefore, although the God of the universe
should through His own power descend with Jesus into the life of men, and
although the Word which was in the beginning with God, which is also God
Himself, should come to us, He does not give His place or vacate His own
seat, so that one place should be empty of Him, and another which did not
formerly contain Him be filled. But the power and divinity of God comes
through him whom God chooses, and resides in him in whom it finds a place,
not changing its situation, nor leaving its own place empty and filling
another: for, in speaking of His quitting one place and occupying another,
we do not mean such expressions  to be taken logically; but we say that the
soul of the bad man, and of him who is overwhelmed in wickedness, is
abandoned by God, while we mean that the soul of him who wishes to live
virtuously, or of him who is making progress (in a virtuous life), or who
is already living conform-ably thereto, is filled with or becomes a
partaker of the Divine Spirit. It is not necessary, then, for the descent
of Christ, or for the coming of God to men, that He should abandon a
greater seat, and that things on earth should be changed, as Celsus
imagines when he says, "If you were to change a single one, even the least,
of things on earth, all things would be overturned and disappear." And if
we must speak of a change in any one by the appearing of the power of God,
and by the entrance of the word among men, we shall not be reluctant to
speak of changing from a wicked to a virtuous, from a dissolute to a
temperate, and from a superstitious to a religious life, the person who has
allowed the word of God to find entrance into his soul.

CHAP. VI

   But if you will have us to meet the most ridiculous among the charges
of Celsus, listen to him when he says: "Now God, being unknown amongst men,
and deeming himself on  that account to have less than his due, (6) would
desire to make himself known, and to make trial both of those who believe
upon him and of those who do not, like those of mankind who have recently
come into the possession of riches, and who make a display of their wealth;
and thus they testify to an excessive but very mortal ambition on the part
of God." (7) We answer, then, that God, not being known by wicked men,
would desire to make Himself known, not because He thinks that He meets
with less than His due, but because the knowledge of Him will free the
possessor from unhappiness. Nay, not even with the desire to try those who
do or who do not believe upon Him, does He, by His unspeakable and divine
power, Himself take up His abode in certain individuals, or send His
Christ; but He does this in order to liberate from all their wretchedness
those who do believe upon Him, and who accept His divinity, and that those
who do not believe may no longer have this as a ground of excuse, viz.,
that their unbelief is the consequence of their not having heard the word
of instruction. What argument, then, proves that it follows from our views
that God, according to our representations, is "like those of mankind who
have recently come into the possession of riches, and who make a display of
their wealth?" For God makes no display towards us, from a desire that we
should understand and consider His pre-eminence; but desiring that the
blessedness which results from His being known by us should be implanted in
our souls, He brings it to pass through Christ, and His ever-indwelling
word, that we come to an intimate fellowship, with Him. No mortal ambition,
then, does the Christian doctrine testify as existing on the part of God.

CHAP. VII.

   I do not know how it is, that after the foolish remarks which he has
made upon the subject which we have just been discussing, he should add the
following, that "God does not desire to make himself known for his own
sake, but because he wishes to bestow upon us the knowledge of himself for
the sake of our salvation, in order that those who accept it may become
virtuous and be saved, while those who do not accept may be shown to be
wicked and be punished." And yet, after making such a statement, he raises
a new objection, saying: "After so long a period of time, (2) then, did God
now bethink himself of making men live righteous lives, (3) but neglect to
do so before?" To which we answer, that there never was a time when God did
not wish to make men live righteous lives; but He continually evinced His
care for the improvement of the rational animal, (4) by affording him
occasions for the exercise of virtue. For in every generation the wisdom of
God, passing into those souls which it ascertains to be holy, converts them
into friends and prophets of God. And there may be found in the sacred book
(the names of) those who in each generation were holy, and were recipients
of the Divine Spirit, and who strove to convert their contemporaries so far
as in their power.

CHAP. VIII.

   And it is not matter of surprise that in certain generations there have
existed prophets who, in the reception of divine influence, (5) surpassed,
by means of their stronger and more powerful (religious) life, other
prophets who were their contemporaries, and others also who lived before
and after them. And so it is not at all wonderful that there should also
have been a time when something of surpassing excellence (6) took up its
abode among the human race, and which was distinguished above all that
preceded or even that followed. But there is an element of profound mystery
in the account of these things, and one which is incapable of being
received by the popular understanding. And in order that these difficulties
should be made to disappear, and that the objections raised against the
advent of Christ should be answered--viz., that, "after so long a period of
time, then, did God now bethink himself of making men live righteous lives,
but neglect to do so before?"--it is necessary to touch upon the narrative
of the divisions (of the nations), and to make it evident why it was, that
"when the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of
Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the
angels of God, and the portion of the LORD was His people Jacob, Israel the
cord of His inheritance;" (7) and it will be necessary to state the reason
why the birth of each man took place within each particular boundary, under
him who obtained the boundary by lot, and how it rightly happened that "the
portion of the LORD was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His
inheritance," and why formerly the portion of the LORD was His people
Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance. But with respect to those
who come after, it is said to the Saviour by the Father, "Ask of Me, and I
will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts
of the earth for Thy possession." (8) For there are certain connected and
related reasons, bearing upon the different treatment of human souls, which
are difficult to state and to investigate. (9)

   There came, then, although Celsus may not wish to admit it, after the
numerous prophets who were the reformers of that well-known Israel, the
Christ, the Reformer of the whole world, who did not need to employ against
men whips, and chains, and tortures, as was the case under the former
economy. For when the sower went forth to sow, the doctrine sufficed to sow
the word everywhere. But if there is a time coming which will necessarily
circumscribe the duration of the world, by reason of its having had a
beginning, and if there is to be an end to the world, and after the end a
just judgment of all things, it will be incumbent on him who treats the
declarations of the Gospels philosophically, to establish these doctrines
by arguments of all kinds, not only derived directly from the sacred Scrip-
tares, but also by inferences deducible from them; while the more numerous
and simpler class of believers, and those who are unable to comprehend the
many varied aspects of the divine wisdom, must entrust themselves to God,
and to the Saviour of our race, and be contented with His "ipse dixit," (1)
instead of this or any other demonstration whatever.

CHAP. X.

   In the next place, Celsus, as is his custom having neither proved nor
established anything, proceeds to say, as if we talked of God in a manner
that was neither holy nor pious, that "it is perfectly manifest that they
babble about God in a way that is neither holy nor reverential;" and he
imagines that we do these things to excite the astonishment of the
ignorant, and that we do not speak the truth regarding the necessity of
punishments for those who have sinned. And accordingly he likens us to
those who "in the Bacchic mysteries introduce phantoms and objects of
terror." With respect to the mysteries of Bacchus, whether there is any
trustworthy (2) account of them, or none that is such, let the Greeks tell,
and let Celsus and his boon-companions (3) listen. But we defend our own
procedure, When we say that our object is to reform the human race, either
by the threats of punishments which we are persuaded are necessary for the
whole world, (4) and which perhaps are not without use s to those who are
to endure them; or by the promises made to those who have lived virtuous
lives, and in which are contained the statements regarding the blessed
termination which is to be found in the kingdom of God, reserved for those
who are worthy of becoming His subjects.

CHAP. XI.

   After this, being desirous to show that it is nothing either wonderful
or new which we state regarding floods or conflagrations, but that, from
misunderstanding the accounts of these things which are current among
Greeks or barbarous nations, we have accorded our belief to our own
Scriptures when treating of them, he writes as follows: "The belief has
spread among them, from a misunderstanding of the accounts of these
occurrences, that after lengthened cycles of time, and the returns and
conjunctions of planets, conflagrations and floods are wont to happen, and
because after the last flood, which took place in the time of Deucalion,
the lapse of time, agreeably to the vicissitude of all things, requires a
conflagration  and this made them give utterance to the erroneous opinion
that God will descend, bringing fire like a torturer." Now in answer to
this we say, that I do not understand how Celsus, who has read a great
deal, and who shows that he has perused many histories, had not his
attention arrested (6) by the antiquity of Moses, who is related by certain
Greek historians to have lived about the time of Inachus the son of
Phoroneus, and is acknowledged by the Egyptians to be a man of great
antiquity, as well as by those who have studied the history of the
Phoenicians. And any one who likes may peruse the two books of Flavius
Josephus on the antiquities of the Jews, in order that he may see in what
way Moses was more ancient than those who asserted that floods and
conflagrations take place in the world after long intervals of time; which
statement Celsus alleges the Jews and Christians to have misunderstood,
and, not comprehending what was said about a conflagration, to have
declared that "God will descend, bringing fire like a torturer." (7)

CHAP. XII.

   Whether, then, there are cycles of time, and floods, or conflagrations
which occur periodically or not, and whether the Scripture is aware of
this, not only in many passages, but especially where Solomon (8) says,
"What is the thing which hath been? Even that which shall be. And what is
the thing which hath been done? Even that which shall be done," (9) etc.,
etc., belongs not to the present occasion to discuss. For it is sufficient
only to observe, that Moses and certain of the prophets, being men of very
great antiquity, did not receive from others the statements relating to the
(future) conflagration of the world; but, on the contrary (if we must
attend to the matter of time (10)), others rather misunderstanding them,
and not inquiring accurately into their statements, invented the fiction of
the same events recurring at certain intervals, and differing neither in
their essential nor accidental qualities. (11) But we do not refer either
the deluge or the conflagration to cycles and planetary periods; but the
cause of them we declare to be the extensive prevalence of wickedness, (12)
and its (consequent) removal by a deluge or a conflagration. And if the
voices of the prophets say that God "comes down," who has said, "Do I not
fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD," (13) the term is used in a
figurative sense. For God "comes down" from His own height and greatness
when He arranges the affairs of men, and especially those of the wicked.
And as custom leads men to say that teachers "condescend" (1) to children,
and wise men to those youths who have just be-taken themselves to
philosophy, not by "descending" in a bodily manner; so, if God is said
anywhere in the holy Scriptures to "come down," it is understood as spoken
in conformity  with the usage which so employs the word, and, in like
manner also with the expression "go Up." (2)

CHAP. XIII.

   But as it is in mockery that Celsus says we speak of "God coming down
like a torturer bearing fire," and thus compels us unseasonably to
investigate words of deeper meaning, we shall make a few remarks,
sufficient to enable our hearers to form an idea (3) of the defence which
disposes of the ridicule of Celsus against us, and then we shall turn to
what follows. The divine word says that our God is "a consuming fire," (4)
and that "He draws rivers of fire before Him;" (5) nay, that He even
entereth in as "a refiner's fire, and as a fuller's herb," (6) to purify
His own people. But when He is said to be a "consuming fire," we inquire
what are the things which are appropriate to be consumed by God. And we
assert that they are wickedness, and the works which result from it, and
which, being figuratively called "wood, hay, stubble," (7) God consumes as
a fire. The wicked man, accordingly, is said to build up on the previously-
laid foundation of reason, "wood, and hay, and stubble." If, then, any one
can show that these words were differently understood by the writer, and
can prove that the wicked man literally (8) builds up "wood, or hay, or
stubble," it is evident that the fire must be understood to be material,
and an object of sense. But if, on the contrary, the works of the wicked
man are spoken of figuratively under the names of "wood, or hay, or
stubble," why does it not at once occur (to inquire) in what sense the word
"fire" is to be taken, so that "wood" of such a kind should be consumed?
for (the Scripture) says: "The fire will try each man's work of what sort
it is. If any man's work abide. which he hath built thereupon, he shall
receive a reward. If any man's work be burned, he shall suffer loss." (9)
But what work can be spoken of in these words as being "burned," save all
that results from wickedness? Therefore our God is a "consuming fire" in
the sense in which we have taken the word; and thus He enters in as a
"refiner's fire," to refine the rational nature, which has been filled with
the lead of wickedness, and to free it from the other impure materials,
which adulterate the natural gold or silver, so to speak, of the soul. (10)
And, in like manner, "rivers of fire" are said to be before God, who will
thoroughly cleanse away the evil which is intermingled throughout the whole
soul. (11) But these remarks are sufficient in answer to the assertion,
"that thus they were made to give expression to the erroneous opinion that
God will come down bearing fire like a torturer."

CHAP. XIV.

   But let us look at what Celsus next with great ostentation announces in
the following fashion: "And again," he says, "let us resume the subject
from the beginning, with a larger array of proofs. And I make no new
statement, but say what has been long settled. God is good, and beautiful,
and blessed, and that in the best and most beautiful degree. (12) But if he
come down among men, he must undergo a change, and a change from good to
evil, from virtue to vice, from happiness to misery, and from best to
worst. Who, then, would make choice of such a change? It is the nature of a
mortal, indeed, to undergo change and remoulding, but of an immortal to
remain the same and unaltered. God, then, could not admit of such a
change." Now it appears to me that the fitting answer has been returned to
these objections, when I have related what is called in Scripture the
"condescension" (13) of God to human affairs; for which purpose He did not
need to undergo a transformation, as Celsus thinks we assert, nor a change
from good to evil, nor from virtue to vice, nor from happiness to misery,
nor from best to worst. For, continuing unchangeable in His essence, He
condescends to human affairs by the economy of His providence. (14) We
show, accordingly, that the holy Scriptures represent God as unchangeable,
both by such words as "Thou art the same," (15) and" I change not ;" (16)
whereas the gods of Epicurus, being composed of atoms, and, so far as their
structure is concerned, capable of dissolution, endeavour to throw off the
atoms which contain the elements of destruction. Nay, even the god of the
Stoics, as being corporeal, at one time has his whole essence composed of
the guiding principle (17) when the conflagration (of the world) takes
place; and at another, when a re-arrangement of things occurs, he again
becomes partly material.(1) For even the Stoics were unable distinctly to
comprehend the natural idea of God, as of a being altogether incorruptible
and simple, and uncompounded and indivisible.

CHAP. XV.

   And with respect to His having descended among men, He was "previously
in the form of God;"(2) and through benevolence, divested Himself (of His
glory), that He might be capable of being received by men. But He did not,
I imagine, undergo any change from "good to evil," for "He did no sin;"(3)
nor from "virtue to vice," for "He knew no sin."(4) Nor did He pass from
"happiness to misery," but He humbled Himself, and nevertheless was
blessed, even when His humiliation was undergone in order to benefit our
race. Nor was there any change in Him from "best to worst," for how can
goodness and benevolence be of "the worst?" Is it befitting to say of the
physician, who looks on dreadful sights and handles unsightly objects in
order to cure the sufferers, that he passes from "good to evil," or from
"virtue to vice," or from "happiness to misery?" And yet the physician, in
looking on dreadful sights and handling unsightly objects, does not wholly
escape the possibility of being involved in the same fate. But He who heals
the wounds of our souls, through the word of God that is in Him, is Himself
incapable of admitting any wickedness. But if the immortal God--the
Word(5)--by assuming a mortal body and a human soul, appears to Celsus to
undergo a change and transformation, let him learn that the Word, still
remaining essentially the Word, suffers none of those things which are
suffered by the body or the soul; but, condescending occasionally to (the
weakness of) him who is unable to look upon the splendours and brilliancy
of Deity, He becomes as it were flesh, speaking with a literal voice, until
he who has received Him in such a form is able, through being elevated in
some slight degree by the teaching of the Word, to gaze upon what is, so to
speak, His real and pre-eminent appearance.(6)

CHAP. XVI.

   For there are different appearances, as it were, of the Word, according
as He shows Himself to each one of those who come to His doctrine; and this
in a manner corresponding to the condition of him who is just becoming a
disciple, or of him who has made a little progress, or of him who has
advanced further, or of him who has already nearly attained to virtue, or
who has even already attained it. And hence it is not the case, as Celsus
and those like him would have it, that our God was transformed, and
ascending the lofty mountain, showed that His real appearance was something
different, and far more excellent than what those who remained below, and
were unable to follow Him on high, beheld. For those below did not possess
eyes capable of seeing the transformation of the Word into His glorious and
more divine condition. But with difficulty were they able to receive Him as
He was; so that it might be said of Him by those who were unable to behold
His more excellent nature: "We saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness;
but His form was mean,(7) and inferior to that of the sons of men."(8) And
let these remarks be an answer to the suppositions of Celsus, who does not
understand the changes or transformations of Jesus, as related in the
histories, nor His mortal and immortal nature.(9)

CHAP. XVII.

   But will not those narratives, especially when they are understood in
their proper sense, appear far more worthy of respect than the story that
Dionysus was deceived by the Titans, and expelled from the throne of
Jupiter, and torn in pieces by them, and his remains being afterwards put
together again, he returned as it were once more to life, and ascended to
heaven? Or are the Greeks at liberty to refer such stories to the doctrine
of the soul, and to interpret them figuratively, while the door of a
consistent explanation, and one everywhere in accord and harmony with the
writings of the Divine Spirit, who had His abode in pure souls, is closed
against us? Celsus, then, is altogether ignorant of the purpose of our
writings, and it is therefore upon his own acceptation of them that he
casts discredit, and not upon their real meaning; whereas, if he had
reflected on what is appropriate(10) to a soul which is to enjoy an
everlasting life, and on the opinion which we are to form of its essence
and principles, he would not so have ridiculed the entrance of the immortal
into a mortal body, which took place not according to the metempsychosis of
Plato, but agreeably to another and higher view of things. And he would
have observed one "descent," distinguished by its great benevolence,
undertaken to convert (as the Scripture mystically terms them) the "lost
sheep of the house of Israel," which had strayed down from the mountains,
and to which the Shepherd is said in certain parables to have gone down,
leaving on the mountains those "which had not strayed."

CHAP. XVIII.

   But Celsus, lingering over matters which he does not understand, leads
us to be guilty of tautology, as we do not wish even in appearance to leave
any one of his objections unexamined. He proceeds, accordingly, as follows:
"God either really changes himself, as these assert, into a mortal body,
and the impossibility  of that has been already declared; Or else he does
not undergo a change, but only causes the beholders to imagine so, and thus
deceives them, and is guilty of falsehood. Now deceit and falsehood are
nothing but evils, and would only be employed as a medicine, either in the
case of sick and lunatic friends, with a view to their cure, or in that of
enemies when one is taking measures to escape danger. But no sick man or
lunatic is a friend of God, nor does God fear any one to such a degree as
to shun danger by leading him into error." Now the answer to these
statements might have respect partly to the nature of the Divine Word, who
is God, and partly to the soul of Jesus. As respects the nature of the
Word, in the same way as the quality of the food changes in the nurse into
milk with reference to the nature of the child, or is arranged by the
physician with a view to the good of his health in the case of a sick man
or (is specially) prepared for a stronger man, because he possesses greater
vigour, so does God appropriately change, in the case of each individual,
the power of the Word to which belongs the natural property of nourishing
the human soul. And to one is given, as the Scripture terms it, "the
sincere milk of the word;" and to another, who is weaker, as it were,
"herbs;" and to another who is full-grown, "strong meat." And the Word does
not, I imagine, prove false to His own nature, in contributing nourishment
to each one, according as he is capable of receiving Him.(1) Nor does He
mislead or prove false. But if one were to take the change as referring to
the soul of Jesus after it had entered the body, we would inquire in what
sense the term "change" is used. For if it be meant to apply to its
essence, such a supposition is inadmissible, not only in relation to the
soul of Jesus, but also to the rational soul of any other being. And if it
be alleged that it suffers anything from the body when united with it, or
from the place to which it has come, then what inconvenience(2) can happen
to the Word who, in great benevolence, brought down a Saviour to the human
race?--seeing none of those who formerly professed to effect a cure could
accomplish so much as that soul showed it could do, by what it performed,
even by voluntarily descending to the level of human destinies for the
benefit of our race. And the Divine Word, well knowing this, speaks to that
effect in many passages of Scripture, although it is sufficient at present
to quote one testimony of Paul to the following effect: "Let this mind be
in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no
reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God
also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every
name."(3)

CHAP. XIX.

   Others, then, may concede to Celsus that God does not undergo a change,
but leads the spectators to imagine that He does; whereas we who are
persuaded that the advent of Jesus among men was no mere appearance, but a
real manifestation, are not affected by this charge of Celsus. We
nevertheless will attempt a reply, because you assert, Celsus, do you not,
that it is sometimes allowable to employ deceit and falsehood by way, as it
were, of medicine?(4) Where, then, is the absurdity, if such a saving
result were to be accomplished, that some such events should have taken
place? For certain words, when savouring of falsehood, produce upon such
characters a corrective effect (like the similar declarations of physicians
to their patients), rather than when spoken in the spirit of truth. This,
however, must be our defence against other opponents. For there is no
absurdity in Him who healed sick friends, healing the dear human race by
means of such remedies as He would not employ preferentially, but only
according to circumstances.(5) The human race, moreover, when in a state of
mental alienation, had to be cured by methods which the Word saw would aid
in bringing back those so afflicted to a sound state of mind. But Celsus
says also, that "one acts thus towards enemies when taking measures to
escape danger. But God does not fear any one, so as to escape danger by
leading into error those who conspire against him." Now it is altogether
unnecessary and absurd to answer a charge which is advanced by no one
against our Saviour. And we have already replied, when answering other
charges, to the statement that "no one who is either in a state of sickness
or mental alienation is a friend of God." For the answer is, that such
arrangements have been made, not for the sake of those who, being already
friends, afterwards fell sick or became afflicted with mental disease, but
in order that those who were still enemies through sickness of the soul,
and alienation of the natural reason, might become the friends of God. For
it is distinctly stated that Jesus endured all things on behalf of sinners,
that He might free them from sin, and convert them to righteousness.

CHAP. XX.

   In the next place, as he represents the Jews accounting in a way
peculiar to themselves for their belief that the advent of Christ among
them is still in the future, and the Christians as maintaining in their way
that the coming of the Son of God into the life of men has already taken
place, let us, as far as we can, briefly consider these points. According
to Celsus, the Jews say that "(human) life, being filled with all
wickedness, needed one sent from God, that the wicked might be punished,
and all things purified in a manner analogous to the first deluge which
happened." And as the Christians are said to make statements additional to
this, it is evident that he alleges that they admit these. Now, where is
the absurdity in the coming of one who is, on account of the prevailing
flood of wickedness, to purify the world, and to treat every one according
to his deserts? For it is not in keeping with the character of God that the
diffusion of wickedness should not cease, and all things be renewed. The
Greeks, moreover, know of the earth's being purified at certain times by a
deluge or a fire, as Plato, too, says somewhere to this effect: "And when
the gods overwhelm the earth, purifying it with water, some of them on the
mountains,"(1) etc., etc. Must it be said, then, that if the Greeks make
such assertions, they are to be deemed worthy of respect and consideration,
but that if we too maintain certain of these views, which are quoted with
approval by the Greeks, they cease to be honourable? And yet they who care
to attend to the connection and truth of all our records, will endeavour to
establish not only the antiquity of the writers, but the venerable nature
of their writings, and the consistency of their several parts.

CHAP. XXI.

   But I do not understand how he can imagine the overturning of the tower
(of Babel) to have happened with a similar object to that of the deluge,
which effected a purification of the earth, according to the accounts both
of Jews and Christians. For, in order that the narrative contained in
Genesis respecting the tower may be held to convey no secret meaning, but,
as Celsus supposes, may be taken as true to the letter,(2) the event does
not on such a view appear to have taken place for the purpose of purifying
the earth; unless, indeed, he imagines that the so-called confusion of
tongues is such a purificatory process. But on this point, he who has the
opportunity will treat more seasonably when his object is to show not only
what is the meaning of the narrative in its historical connection, but what
metaphorical meaning may be deduced from it.(3) Seeing that he imagines,
however, that Moses, who wrote the account of the tower, and the confusion
of tongues, has perverted the story of the sons of Aloeus,(4) and referred
it to the tower, we must remark that I do not think any one prior to the
time of Homer s has mentioned the sons of Aloeus, while I am persuaded that
what is related about the tower has been recorded by Moses as being much
older not only than Homer, but even than the invention of letters among the
Greeks. Who, then, are the perverters of each other's narratives? Whether
do they who relate the story of the Aloadae pervert the history of the
time, or he who wrote the account of the tower and the confusion of tongues
the story of the Aloadae? Now to impartial hearers Moses appears to be more
ancient than Homer. The destruction by fire, moreover, of Sodom and
Gomorrah on account of their sins, related by Moses in Genesis, is compared
by Celsus to the story of Phaethon,--all these statements of his resulting
from one blunder, viz., his not attending to the (greater) antiquity of
Moses.(6) For they who relate the story of Phaethon seem to be younger even
than Homer, who, again, is much younger than Moses. We do not deny, then,
that the purificatory fire and the destruction of the world took place in
order that evil might be swept away, and all things be renewed; for we
assert that we have learned these things from the sacred books of the
prophets. But since, as we have said in the preceding pages, the prophets,
in uttering many predictions regarding future events, show that they have
spoken the truth concerning many things that are past, and thus give
evidence of the indwelling of the Divine Spirit, it is manifest that, with
respect to things still future, we should repose faith in them, or rather
in the Divine Spirit that is in them.

CHAP. XXII.

   But, according to Celsus, "the Christians, making certain additional
statements to those of the Jews, assert that the Son of God has been
already sent on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews hating
chastised Jesus, and given him gall to drink, have brought upon themselves
the divine wrath." And any one who likes may convict this statement of
falsehood, if it be not the case that the whole Jewish nation was
overthrown within one single generation after Jesus had undergone these
sufferings at their hands. For forty and two years, I think, after the date
of the crucifixion of Jesus, did the destruction of Jerusalem take place.
Now it has never been recorded, since the Jewish nation began to exist,
that they have been expelled for so long a period from their venerable
temple-worship(1) and service, and enslaved by more powerful nations; for
if at any time they appeared to be abandoned because of their sins, they
were notwithstanding visited (by God),(2) and returned to their own
country, and recovered their possessions, and performed unhindered the
observances of their law. One fact, then, which proves that Jesus was
something divine and sacred,(3) is this, that Jews should have suffered on
His account now for a lengthened time calamities of such severity. And we
say with confidence that they will never be restored to  their former
condition.(4) For they committed a  crime of the most unhallowed kind, in
conspiring against the Saviour of the human race in that city where they
offered up to God a worship containing the symbols of mighty mysteries. It
accordingly behoved that city where Jesus underwent these sufferings to
perish utterly, and the Jewish nation to be overthrown, and the invitation
to happiness offered them by God to pass to others,--the Christians, I
mean, to whom has come the doctrine of a pure and holy worship, and who
have obtained new laws, in harmony with the established constitution in all
countries;(5) seeing those which were formerly imposed, as on a single
nation which was ruled by princes of its own race and of similar
manners,(6) could not now be observed in all their entireness.

CHAP. XXIII.

   In the next place, ridiculing after his usual style the race of Jews
and Christians, he compares them all "to a flight of bats or to a swarm of
ants issuing out of their nest, or to frogs holding council in a marsh, or
to worms crawling together in the comer of a dunghill, and quarrelling with
one another as to which of them were the greater sinners, and asserting
that God shows and announces to us all things beforehand; and that,
abandoning the whole world, and the regions of heaven,(7) and this great
earth, he becomes a citizen(8) among us alone, and to us alone makes his
intimations, and does not cease sending and inquiring, in what way we may
be associated with him for ever." And in his fictitious representation, he
compares us to " worms which assert that there is a God, and that
immediately after him, we who are made by him are altogether like unto God,
and that all things have been made subject to us,--earth, and water, and
air, and stars,--and that all things exist for our sake, and are ordained
to be subject to us." And, according to his representation, the worms--that
is, we ourselves--say that "now, since certain amongst us commit sin, God
will come or will send his Son to consume the wicked with fire, that the
rest of us may have eternal life with him." And to all this he subjoins the
remark, that "such wranglings would be more endurable amongst worms and
frogs than betwixt Jews and Christians."

CHAP. XXIV.

   In reply to these, we ask of those who accept such aspersions as are
scattered against us, Do you regard all men as a collection of bats, or as
frogs, or as worms, in consequence of the pre-eminence of God? or do you
not include the rest of mankind in this proposed comparison, but on account
of their possession of reason, and of the established laws, treat them as
men, while you hold cheap(9) Christians and Jews, because their opinions
are distasteful to you, and compare them to the animals above mentioned?
And whatever answer you may return to our question, we shall reply by
endeavouring to show that such assertions are most unbecoming, whether
spoken of all men in general, or of us in particular. For, let it be
supposed that you say justly that all men, as compared with God, are
(rightly) likened to these worthless(10) animals, since their littleness is
not at all to be compared with the superiority of God, what then do you
mean by littleness? Answer me, good sirs. If you refer to littleness of
body, know that superiority and inferiority, if truth is to be judge, are
not determined by a bodily standard.(11) For, on such a view, vultures(12)
and elephants would be superior to us men; for they are larger, and
stronger, and longer-lived than we. But no sensible person would maintain
that these irrational creatures are superior to rational beings, merely on
account of their bodies: for the possession of reason raises a rational
being to a vast superiority over all irrational creatures. Even the race of
virtuous and blessed beings would admit this, whether they are, as ye say,
good demons, or, as we are accustomed to call them, the angels of God, or
any other natures whatever superior to that of man, since the rational
faculty within them has been made perfect, and endowed with all virtuous
qualities.(1)

CHAP. XXV.

   But if you depreciate the littleness of man, not on account of his
body, but of his soul, regarding it as inferior to that of other rational
beings, and especially of those who are virtuous; and inferior, because
evil dwells in it,--why should those among Christians who are wicked, and
those among the Jews who lead sinful lives, be termed a collection of bats,
or ants, or worms, or frogs, rather than those individuals among other
nations who are guilty of wickedness?--seeing, in this respect, any
individual whatever, especially if carried away by the tide of evil, is, in
comparison with the rest of mankind, a bat, and worm, and frog, and ant.
And although a man may be an orator like Demosthenes, yet, if stained with
wickedness like his,(2) and guilty of deeds proceeding, like his, from a
wicked nature; or an Antiphon, who was also considered to be indeed an
orator, yet who annihilated the doctrine of providence in his writings,
which were entitled Concerning Truth, like that discourse of Celsus,--such
individuals are notwithstanding worms, rolling in a comer of the dung-heap
of stupidity and ignorance. Indeed, whatever be the nature of the rational
faculty, it could not reasonably be compared to a worm, because it
possesses capabilities of virtue.(3) For these adumbrations(4) towards
virtue do not allow of those who possess the power of acquiring it, and who
are incapable of wholly losing its seeds, to be likened to a worm. It
appears, therefore, that neither can men in general be deemed worms in
comparison with God. For reason, having its beginning in the reason of God,
cannot allow of the rational animal being considered wholly alien from
Deity. Nor can those among Christians and Jews who are wicked, and who, in
truth, are neither Christians nor Jews, be compared, more than other wicked
men, to worms rolling in a corner of a dunghill. And if the nature of
reason will not permit of such comparisons, it is manifest that we must not
calumniate human nature, which has been formed for virtue, even if it
should sin through ignorance, nor liken it to animals of the kind
described.

CHAP. XXVI.

   But if it is on account of those opinions of the Christians and Jews-
which displease Celsus (and which he does not at all appear to understand)
that they are to be regarded as worms and ants, and the rest of mankind as
different, let us examine the acknowledged opinions of Christians and
Jews,(5) and compare them with those of the rest of mankind, and see
whether it will not appear to those who have once admitted that certain men
are worms and ants, that they are the worms and ants and frogs who have
fallen away from sound views of God, and, under a vain appearance of
piety,(6) worship either irrational animals, or images, or other objects,
the works of men's hands;(7) whereas, from the beauty of such, they ought
to admire the Maker of them, and worship Him: while those are indeed men,
and more honourable than men (if there be anything that is so), who, in
obedience to their reason, are able to ascend from stocks and stones,(8)
nay, even from what is reckoned the most precious of all matter--silver and
gold; and who ascend up also from the beautiful things in the world to the
Maker of all, and entrust themselves to Him who alone is able to satisfy(9)
all existing things, and to overlook the thoughts of all, and to hear the
prayers of all; who send up their prayers to Him, and do all things as in
the presence of Him who beholds everything, and who are careful, as in the
presence of the Hearer of all things, to say nothing which might not with
propriety be reported to God. Will not such piety as this--which can be
overcome neither by labours, nor by the dangers of death, nor by logical
plausibilities(10)--be of no avail in preventing those who have obtained it
from being any longer compared to worms, even if they had been so
represented before their assumption of a piety so remarkable? Will they who
subdue that fierce longing for sexual pleasures which has reduced the souls
of many to a weak and feeble condition, and who subdue it because they are
persuaded that they cannot otherwise have communion with God, unless they
ascend to Him through the exercise of temperance, appear to you to be the
brothers of worms, and relatives of ants, and to bear a likeness to frogs?
What! is the brilliant quality of justice, which keeps inviolate the rights
common to our neighbour, and our kindred, and which observes fairness, and
benevolence, and goodness, of no avail in saving him who practises it from
being termed a bird of the night? And are not they who wallow in
dissoluteness, as do the majority of mankind, and they who associate
promiscuously with common harlots, and who teach that such practices are
not wholly contrary to propriety, worms who roll in mire?--especially when
they are compared with those who have been taught not to take the "members
of Christ," and the body inhabited by the Word, and make them the "members
of a harlot;" and who have already learned that the body of the rational
being, as consecrated to the God of all things, is the temple of the God
whom they worship, becoming such from the pure conceptions which they
entertain of the Creator, and who also, being careful not to corrupt the
temple of God by unlawful pleasure; practise temperance as constituting
piety towards God!

CHAP. XXVII.

   And I have not yet spoken of the other evils which prevail amongst men,
from which even those who have the appearance of philosophers are not
speedily freed, for in philosophy there are many pretenders. Nor do I say
anything on the point that many such evils are found to exist among those
who are neither Jews nor Christians. Of a truth, such evil practices do not
at all prevail among Christians, if you properly examine what constitutes a
Christian. Or, if any persons of that kind should be discovered, they are
at least not to be found among those who frequent the assemblies, and come
to the public prayers, without their being excluded from them, unless it
should happen, and that rarely, that some one individual of such a
character escapes notice in the crowd. We, then, are not worms who assemble
together; who take our stand against the Jews on those Scriptures which
they believe to be divine, and who show that He who was spoken of in
prophecy has come, and that they have been abandoned on account of the
greatness of their sins, and that we who have accepted the Word have the
highest hopes in God, both because of our faith in Him, and of His ability
to receive us into His communion pure from all evil and wickedness of life.
If a man, then, should call himself a Jew or a Christian, he would not say
without qualification that God had made the whole world, and the vault of
heaven(1) for us in particular. But if a man is, as Jesus taught, pure in
heart, and meek, and peaceful, and cheerfully submits to dangers for the
sake of his religion, such an one might reasonably have confidence in God,
and with a full apprehension of the word contained in the prophecies, might
say this also: "All these things has God shown beforehand, and announced to
us who believe."

CHAP. XXVIII.

   But since he has represented those whom he regards as worms, viz., the
Christians, as saying that "God, having abandoned the heavenly regions, and
despising this great earth, takes up His abode amongst us alone, and to us
alone makes His announcements, and ceases not His messages and inquiries as
to how we may become His associates for ever," we have to answer that he
attributes to us words which we never uttered, seeing we both read and know
that GOd loves all existing things, and loathes(2) nothing which He has
made, for He would not have created anything in hatred. We have, moreover,
read the declaration: "And Thou sparest all things, because they ate Thine,
O lover of souls. For Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all. And therefore
those also who have fallen away for a little time Thou rebukest, and
admonishest, reminding them of their sins."(3) How can we assert that "God,
leaving the regions of heaven, and the whole world, and despising this
great earth, takes up His abode amongst us only," when we have found that
all thoughtful persons must say in their prayers, that "the earth is full
of the mercy of the LORD,"(4) and that "the mercy of the Lord is upon all
flesh;"(5) and that God, being good, "maketh His sun to arise upon the evil
and the good, and sendeth His rain upon the just and the unjust;"(6) and
that He encourages us to a similar course of action, in order that we may
become His sons, and teaches us to extend the benefits which we enjoy, so
far as in our power, to all men? For He Himself is said to be the Saviour
of all men, especially of them that believe;(7) and His Christ to be the
"propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of
the whole world."(8) And this, then, is our answer to the allegations of
Celsus. Certain other statements, in keeping with the character of the
Jews, might be made by some of that nation, but certainly not by the
Christians, who have been taught that "God commendeth His love towards us,
in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us;"(9) and although
"scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet peradventure for a good man
some would even dare to die."(1) But now is Jesus declared to have come for
the sake of sinners in all parts of the world (that they may forsake their
sin, and entrust themselves to God), being called also, agreeably to an
ancient custom of these Scriptures, the "Christ of God."

CHAP. XXIX.

   But Celsus perhaps has misunderstood certain of those whom he has
termed "worms," when they affirm that "God exists, and that we are next to
Him." And he acts like those who would find fault with an entire sect of
philosophers, on account of certain words uttered by some rash youth who,
after a three days' attendance upon the lectures of a philosopher, should
exalt himself above other people as inferior to himself, and devoid of
philosophy. For we know that there are many creatures more honourable(2)
than man; and we have read that "God standeth in the congregation of
gods,"(3) but of gods who are not worshipped by the nations, "for all the
gods of the nations are idols."(4) We have read also, that "God, standing
in the congregation of the gods, judgeth among the gods."(5) We know,
moreover, that "though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or
in earth (as there be gods many and lords many), but to us there is one
God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."(6) And we know that in this
way the angels are superior to men; so that men, when made perfect, become
like the angels. "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given
in marriage, but the righteous are as the angels in heaven,"(7) and also
become "equal to the angels."(8) We know, too, that in the arrangement of
the universe there are certain beings termed "thrones," and others
"dominions," and others "powers," and others "principalities;" and we see
that we men, who are far inferior to these, may entertain the hope that by
a virtuous life, and by acting in all things agreeably to reason, we may
rise to a likeness with all these. And, lastly, because "it doth not yet
appear what we shall be; but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be
like God, and shall see Him as He is."(9) And if any one were to maintain
what is asserted by some (either by those who possess intelligence or who
do not, but have misconceived sound reason), that "God exists, and we are
next to Him," I would interpret the word "we," by using in its stead, "We
who act according to reason," or rather, "We virtuous, who act according to
reason."(10) For, in our opinion, the same virtue belongs to all the
blessed, so that the virtue of man and of God is identical.(11) And
therefore we are taught to become "perfect," as our Father in heaven is
perfect.(12) No good and virtuous man, then, is a "worm rolling in filth,"
nor is a pious man an "ant," nor a righteous man a "frog;" nor could one
whose soul is enlightened with the bright light of truth be reasonably
likened to a "bird of the night."

CHAP. XXX.

   It appears to me that Celsus has also misunderstood this statement,
"Let Us make man in Our image and likeness;"(13) and has therefore
represented the "worms" as saying that, being created by God, we altogether
resemble Him. If, however, he had known the difference between man being
created "in the image of God" and "after His likeness," and that God is
recorded to have said, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness," but
that He made man "after the image" of God, but not then also "after His
likeness,"(14) he would not have represented us as saying that "we are
altogether like Him." Moreover, we do not assert that the stars are subject
to us; since the resurrection which is called the "resurrection of the
just," and which is understood by wise men, is compared to the sun, and
moon, and stars, by him who said, "There is one glory of the sun, and
another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star
differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the
dead."(15) Daniel also prophesied long ago regarding these things.(16)
Celsus says further, that we assert that "all things have been arranged so
as to be subject to us," having perhaps heard some of the intelligent among
us speaking to that effect, and perhaps also not understanding the saying,
that "he who is the greatest amongst us is the servant of all."(17) And if
the Greeks say, "Then sun and moon are the slaves of mortal men,"(18) they
express approval of the statement, and give an explanation of its meaning;
but since such a statement is either not made at all by us, or is expressed
in a different way, Celsus here too falsely accuses us. Moreover, we who,
according to Celsus, are "worms," are represented by him as saying that,
"seeing some among us are guilty of sin, God will come to us, or will send
His own Son, that He may consume the wicked, and that we other frogs may
enjoy eternal life with Him." Observe how this venerable philosopher, like
a low buffoon,(1) turns into ridicule and mockery, and a subject of
laughter, the announcement of a divine judgment, and of the punishment of
the wicked, and of the reward of the righteous; and subjoins to all this
the remark, that "such statements would be more endurable if made by worms
and flogs than by Christians and Jews who quarrel with one another!" We
shall not, however, imitate his example, nor say similar things regarding
those philosophers who profess to know the nature of all things, and who
discuss with each other the manner in which all things were created, and
how the heaven and earth originated, and all things in them; and how the
souls (of men), being either unbegotten, and not created by God, are  yet
governed by Him, and pass from one body to another;(2) or being formed at
the same time with the body, exist for ever or pass away. For instead of
treating with respect and accepting the intention of those who have devoted
themselves to the investigation of the truth, one might mockingly and
revilingly say that such men were "worms," who did not measure themselves
by their comer of their dung-heap in human life, and who accordingly gave
forth their opinions on matters of such importance as if they understood
them, and who strenuously assert that they have obtained a view of those
things which cannot be seen without a higher inspiration and a diviner
power. "For no man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man
which is in him: even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit
of God."(3) We are not, however, mad, nor do we compare such human wisdom
(I use the word "wisdom" in the common acceptation), which busies itself
not about the affairs of the multitude, but in the investigation of truth,
to the wrigglings of worms or any other such creatures; but in the spirit
of truth, we testify of certain Greek philosophers that they knew God,
seeing "He manifested Himself to them,"(4) although "they glorified Him not
as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations; and
professing themselves to be wise, they became foolish, 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."(5)

CHAP. XXXI.

   After this, wishing to prove that there is no difference between Jews
and Christians, and those animals previously enumerated by him, he asserts
that the Jews were "fugitives from Egypt, who never performed anything
worthy of note, and never were held in any reputation or account."(6) Now,
on the point of their not being fugitives, nor Egyptians, but Hebrews who
settled in Egypt, we have spoken in the preceding pages. But if he thinks
his statement, that "they were never held in any reputation or account," to
be proved, because no remarkable event in their history is found recorded
by the Greeks, we would answer, that if one will examine their polity from
its first beginning, and the arrangement of their laws, he will find that
they were men who represented upon earth the shadow of a heavenly life, and
that amongst them God is recognised as nothing else, save He who is over
all things, and that amongst them no maker of images was permitted to enjoy
the rights of citizenship.(7) For neither painter nor image-maker existed
in their state, the law expelling all such from it; that there might be no
pretext for the construction of images,--an art which attracts the
attention of foolish men, and which drags down the eyes of the soul from
God to earth.(8) There was, accordingly, amongst them a law to the
following effect: "Do not transgress the law, and make to yourselves a
graven image, any likeness of male or female; either a likeness of any one
of the creatures that are upon the earth, or a likeness of any winged fowl
that flieth under the heaven, or a likeness of any creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth, or a likeness of any of the fishes which are in
the waters under the earth."(9) The law, indeed, wished them to have regard
to the truth of each individual thing, and not to form representations of
things contrary to reality, feigning the appearance merely of what was
really male or really female, or the nature of animals, or of birds, or of
creeping things, or of fishes. Venerable, too, and grand was this
prohibition of theirs: "Lift not up thine eyes unto heaven, lest, when thou
seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the host of heaven,
thou shouldst be led astray to worship them, and serve them."(10) And what
a regime(11) was that under which the whole nation was placed, and which
rendered it impossible for any effeminate person to appear in public;(12)
and worthy of admiration, too, was the arrangement by which harlots were
removed out of the state, those incentives to the passions of the youth!
Their courts of justice also were composed of men of the strictest
integrity, who, after having for a lengthened period set the example of an
unstained life, were entrusted with the duty of presiding over the
tribunals, and who, on account of the superhuman purity of their
character,(1) were said to be gods, in conformity with an ancient Jewish
usage of speech. Here was the spectacle of a whole nation devoted to
philosophy; and in order that there might be leisure to listen to their
sacred laws, the days termed "Sabbath," and the other festivals which
existed among them, were instituted. And why need I speak of the orders of
their priests and sacrifices, which contain innumerable indications (of
deeper truths) to those who wish to ascertain the signification of things?

CHAP. XXXII.

   But since nothing belonging to human nature is permanent, this polity
also must gradually be corrupted and changed. And Providence, having
remodelled their venerable system where it needed to be changed, so as to
adapt it to men of all countries, gave to believers of all nations, in
place of the Jews, the venerable religion of Jesus, who, being adorned not
only with understanding, but also with a share of divinity,(2) and having
overthrown the doctrine regarding earthly demons, who delight in
frankincense, and blood, and in the exhalations of sacrificial odours, and
who, like the fabled Titans or Giants, drag down men from thoughts of God;
and having Himself disregarded their plots, directed chiefly against the
better class of men, enacted laws which ensure happiness to those who live
according to them, and who do not flatter the demons by means of
sacrifices, but altogether despise them, through help of the word of God,
which aids those who look upwards to Him. And as it was the will of God
that the doctrine of Jesus should prevail amongst men, the demons could
effect nothing, although straining every nerve(3) to accomplish the
destruction of Christians; for they stirred up both princes, and senates,
and rulers in every place,--nay, even nations themselves, who did not
perceive the irrational and wicked procedure of the demons,--against the
word, and those who believed in it; yet, notwithstanding, the word of God,
which is more powerful than all other things, even when meeting with
opposition, deriving from the opposition, as it were, a means of increase,
advanced onwards, and won many souls, such being the will of God. And we
have offered these remarks by way of a necessary digression. For we wished
to answer the assertion of Celsus concerning the Jews, that they were
"fugitives from Egypt, and that these men, beloved by God, never
accomplished anything worthy of note." And further, in answer to the
statement that "they were never held in any reputation or account," we say,
that living apart as a "chosen nation and a royal priesthood," and shunning
intercourse with the many nations around them, in order that their morals
might escape corruption, they enjoyed the protection of the divine power,
neither coveting like the most of mankind the acquisition of other
kingdoms, nor yet being abandoned so as to become, on account of their
smallness, an easy object of attack to others, and thus be altogether
destroyed; and this lasted so long as they were worthy of the divine
protection. But when it became necessary for them, as a nation wholly given
to sin, to be brought back by their sufferings to their God, they were
abandoned (by Him), sometimes for a longer, sometimes for a shorter period,
until in the time of the Romans, having committed the greatest of sins in
putting Jesus to death, they were completely deserted.

CHAP. XXXIII.

   Immediately after this, Celsus, assailing the contents of the first
book of Moses, which is entitled "Genesis," asserts that "the Jews
accordingly endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of
jugglers and deceivers,(4) appealing to the testimony of dark and ambiguous
words, whose meaning was veiled in obscurity, and which they misinterpreted
s to the unlearned and ignorant, and that, too, when such a point had never
been called in question during the long preceding period." Now Celsus
appears to me in these words to have expressed very obscurely the meaning
which he intended to convey. It is probable, indeed, that his obscurity on
this subject is intentional, inasmuch  as he saw the strength of the
argument which establishes the descent of the Jews from their ancestors;
while again, on the other hand, he wished not to appear ignorant that the
question regarding the Jews and their descent was one that could not be
lightly disposed of. It is certain, however, that the Jews trace their
genealogy back to the three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And the
names of these individuals possess such efficacy, when united with the name
of God, that not only do those belonging to the nation employ in their
prayers to God, and in the exorcising of demons, the words, "God of
Abraham,(6) and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob," but so also do almost all
those who occupy themselves with incantations and magical rites. For there
is found in treatises on magic in many countries such an invocation of God,
and assumption of the divine name, as implies a familiar use of it by these
men in their dealings with demons. These facts, then--adduced by Jews and
Christians to prove the sacred character of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,
the fathers of the Jewish race--appear to me not to have been altogether
unknown to Celsus, but not to have been distinctly set forth by him,
because he was unable to answer the argument which might be founded on
them.

CHAP. XXXIV.

   For we inquire of all those who employ such invocations of God, saying:
Tell us, friends, who was Abraham, and what sort of person was Isaac, and
what power did Jacob possess, that the appellation "God," when joined with
their name, could effect such wonders? And from whom have you learned, or
can you learn, the facts relating to these individuals? And who has
occupied himself with writing a history about them, either directly
magnifying these men by ascribing to them mysterious powers, or hinting
obscurely at their possession of certain great and marvellous qualities,
patent to those who are qualified to see them?(1) And when, in answer to
our inquiry, no one can show from what history--whether Greek or Barbarian-
-or, if not a history, yet at least from what mystical narrative,(2) the
accounts of these men are derived, we shall bring forward the book entitled
"Genesis," which contains the acts of these men, and the divine oracles
addressed to them, and will say, Does not the use by you of the names of
these three ancestors of the race, establishing in the clearest manner that
effects not to be lightly regarded are produced by the invocation of them,
evidence the divinity of the men?(3) And yet we know them from no other
source than the sacred books of the Jews! Moreover, the phrases, "the God
of Israel," and "the God of the Hebrews," and "the God who drowned in the
Red Sea the king of Egypt and the Egyptians," are formuloe(4) frequently
employed against demons and certain wicked powers. And we learn the history
of the names and their interpretation from those Hebrews, who in their
national literature and national tongue dwell with pride upon these things,
and explain their meaning. How, then, should the Jews attempt to derive
their origin from the first race of those whom Celsus supposed to be
jugglers and deceivers, and shamelessly endeavour to trace themselves and
their beginning back to these?--whose names, being Hebrew, are an evidence
to the Hebrews, who have their sacred books written in the Hebrew language
and letters, that their nation is akin to these men. For up to the present
time, the Jewish names belonging to the Hebrew language were either taken
from their writings, or generally from words the meaning of which was made
known by the Hebrew language.

CHAP. XXXV.

   And let any one who peruses the treatise of Celsus observe whether it
does not convey some such insinuation as the above, when he says: "And they
attempted to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers and
deceivers, appealing to the testimony of dark and ambiguous words, whose
meaning was veiled in obscurity." For these names are indeed obscure, and
not within the comprehension and knowledge of many, though not in our
opinion of doubtful meaning, even although assumed by those who are aliens
to our religion; but as, according to Celsus, they do not s convey any
ambiguity, I am at a loss to know why he has rejected them. And yet, if he
had wished honestly to overturn the genealogy which he deemed the Jews to
have so shamelessly arrogated, in boasting of Abraham and his descendants
(as their progenitors), he ought to have quoted all the passages bearing on
the subject; and, in the first place, to have advocated his cause with such
arguments as he thought likely to be convincing, and in the next to have
bravely(6) refuted, by means of what appeared to him to be the true
meaning, and by arguments in its favour, the errors existing on the
subject. But neither Celsus nor any one else will be able, by their
discussions regarding the nature of names employed for miraculous purposes,
to lay down the correct doctrine regarding them, and to demonstrate that
those  men were to be lightly esteemed whose names merely, not among their
countrymen alone, but also amongst foreigners, could accomplish (such
results). He ought to have shown, moreover, how we, in misinterpreting(7)
the passages in which these names are found, deceive our hearers, as he
imagines, while he himself, who boasts that he is not ignorant or
unintelligent, gives the true interpretation of them. And he hazarded the
assertion,(1) in speaking of those names, from which the Jews deduce their
genealogies, that "never, during the long antecedent period, has there been
any dispute about these names, but that at the present time the Jews
dispute about them with certain others," whom he does not mention. Now, let
him who chooses show who these are that dispute with the Jews, and who
adduce even probable arguments to show that Jews and Christians do not
decide correctly on the points relating to these names, but that there are
others who have discussed these questions with the greatest learning and
accuracy. But we are well assured that none can establish anything of the
sort, it being manifest that these names are derived from the Hebrew
language, which is found only among the Jews.

CHAP. XXXVI.

   Celsus in the next place, producing from history other than that of the
divine record, those passages which bear upon the claims to great antiquity
put forth by many nations, as the Athenians, and Egyptians, and Arcadians,
and Phrygians, who assert that certain individuals have existed among them
who sprang from the earth, and who each adduce proOfs of these assertions,
says: "The Jews, then, leading a grovelling life(2) in some comer of
Palestine, and being a wholly uneducated people, who had not heard that
these matters had been committed to verse long ago by Hesiod and
innumerable other inspired men, wove together some most incredible and
insipid stories,(3) viz., that a certain man was formed by the hands of
God, and had breathed into him the breath of life, and that a woman was
taken from his side, and that God issued certain commands, and that a
serpent opposed these, and gained a victory over the commandments of God;
thus relating certain old wives' fables, and most impiously representing
God as weak at the very beginning (of things), and unable to convince even
a single human being whom He Himself had formed." By these instances,
indeed, this deeply read and learned Celsus, who accuses Jews and
Christians of ignorance and want of instruction, clearly evinces the
accuracy of his knowledge of the chronology of the respective historians,
whether Greek or Barbarian, since he imagines that Hesiod and the
"innumerable" others, whom he styles "inspired" men, are older than Moses
and his writings--that very Moses who is shown to be much older than the
time of the Trojan war! It is not the Jews, then, who have composed
incredible and insipid stories regarding the birth of man from the earth,
but these "inspired" men of Celsus, Hesiod and his other "innumerable"
companions, who, having neither learned nor heard of the far older and most
venerable accounts existing in Palestine, have written such histories as
their Theogonies, attributing, so far as in their power, "generation" to
their deities, and innumerable other absurdities. And these are the writers
whom Plato expels from his "State" as being corrupters of the youth,(4)--
Homer, viz., and those who have composed poems of a similar description!
Now it is evident that Plato did not regard as "inspired" those men who had
left behind them such works. But perhaps it was from a desire to cast
reproach upon us, that this Epicurean Celsus, who is better able to judge
than Plato (if it be the same Celsus who composed two other books against
the Christians), called those individuals "inspired" whom he did not in
reality regard as such.

CHAP. XXXVII.

   He charges us, moreover, with introducing "a man formed by the hands of
God," although the book of Genesis has made no mention of the "hands" of
God, either when relating the creation or the "fashioning"(5) of the man;
white it is Job and David who have used the expression, "Thy hands have
made me and fashioned me;"(6) with reference to which it would need a
lengthened discourse to point out the sense in which these words were
understood by those who used them, both as regards the difference between
"making" and "fashioning," and also the "hands" of God. For those who do
not understand these and similar expressions in the sacred Scriptures,
imagine that we attribute to the God who is over all things a form(7) such
as that of man; and according to their conceptions, it follows that we
consider the body of God to be furnished with wings, since the Scriptures,
literally understood, attribute such appendages to God. The subject before
us, however, does not require us to interpret these expressions; for, in
our explanatory remarks upon the book of Genesis, these matters have been
made, to the best of our ability, a special subject of investigation.
Observe next the malignity(8) of Celsus in what follows. For the Scripture,
speaking of the "fashioning"(9) of the man, says, "And breathed into his
face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul."(10) Whereon
Celsus, wishing maliciously to ridicule the "inbreathing into his face of
the breath of life," and not understanding the sense in which the
expression was employed, states that "they composed a story that a man was
fashioned by the hands of God, and was inflated by breath blown into
him,"(1) in order that, taking the word" inflated" to be used in a similar
way to the inflation of skins, he might ridicule the statement, "He
breathed into his face the breath of life,"--terms which are used
figuratively, and require to be explained in order to show that God
communicated to man of His incorruptible Spirit; as it is said, "For Thine
incorruptible Spirit is in all things."(2)

CHAP. XXXVIII.

   In the next place, as it is his object to slander our Scriptures, he
ridicules the following statement: "And God caused a deep sleep to fall
upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the
flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which He had taken from the man, made
He a woman,"(3) and so on; without quoting the words, which would give the
hearer the impression that they are spoken with a figurative meaning. He
would not even have it appear that the words were used allegorically,
although he says afterwards, that "the more modest among Jews and
Christians are ashamed of these things, and endeavour to give them somehow
an allegorical signification." Now we might say to him, Are the statements
of your "inspired" Hesiod, which he makes regarding the woman in the form
of a myth, to be explained allegorically, in the sense that she was given
by Jove to men as an evil thing, and as a retribution for the theft of "the
fire;"(4) while that regarding the woman who was taken from the side of the
man (after he had been buried in deep slumber), and was formed by God,
appears to you to be related without any rational meaning and secret
signification?(5) But is it not uncandid, not to ridicule the former as
myths, but to admire them as philosophical ideas in a mythical dress, and
to treat with contempt(6) the latter, as offending the understanding, and
to declare that they are of no account? For if, because of the mere
phraseology, we are to find fault with what is intended to have a secret
meaning, see whether the following lines of Hesiod, a man, as you say,"
inspired," are not better fitted to excite laughter:--

   "'Son of Iapetus!' with wrathful heart
   Spake the cloud-gatherer: 'Oh, unmatched in art!
   Exultest thou in this the flame retrieved,
   And dost thou triumph in the god deceived?
   But thou, with the posterity of man,
   Shalt rue the fraud whence mightier ills began;
   I will send evil for thy stealthy fire,
   While all embrace it, and their bane desire.'
   The sire, who rules the earth, and sways the pole,
   Had said, and laughter fill'd his secret soul.
   He bade the artist-god his best obey,
   And mould with tempering waters ductile clay:
   Infuse, as breathing life and form began,
   The supple vigour, and the voice of man:
   Her aspect fair as goddesses above,
   A virgin's likeness, with the brows of love.
   He bade Minerva teach the skill that dyes
   The web with colours, as the shuttle flies;
   He called the magic of Love's Queen to shed
   A nameless grace around her courteous head;
   Instil the wish that longs with restless aim,
   And cares of dress that feed upon the frame:
   Bade Hermes last implant the craft refined
   Of artful manners, and a shameless mind.
   He said; their king th' inferior powers obeyed:
   The fictile likeness of a bashful maid
   Rose from the temper'd earth, by Jove's behest,
   Under the forming god; the zone and vest
   Were clasp'd and folded by Minerva's hand:
   The heaven-born graces, and persuasion bland
   Deck'd her round limbs with chains of gold: the hours
   Of loose locks twined her temples with spring flowers.
   The whole attire Minerva's curious care
   Form'd to her shape, and fitted to her air.
   But in her breast the herald from above,
   Full of the counsels of deep thundering Jove,
   Wrought artful manners, wrought perfidious lies,
   And speech that thrills the blood, and lulls the wise.
   Her did th' interpreter of gods proclaim,
   And named the woman with Pandora's name;
   Since all the gods conferr'd their gifts, to charm,
   For man's inventive race, this beauteous harm."(7)

Moreover, what is said also about the casket is fitted of itself to excite
laughter; for example:--

   "Whilome on earth the sons of men abode
   From ills apart, and labour's irksome load,
   And sore diseases, bringing age to man;
   Now the sad life of mortals is a span.
   The woman's hands a mighty casket bear;
   She lifts the lid; she scatters griefs in air:
   Alone, beneath the vessel s rims detained,
   Hope still within th' unbroken cell remained,
   Nor fled abroad; so will'd cloud-gatherer Jove:
   The woman's hand had dropp'd the lid above."(8)

Now, to him who would give to these lines a grave allegorical meaning
(whether any such meaning be contained in them or not), we would say: Are
the Greeks alone at liberty to convey a philosophic meaning in a secret
covering? or perhaps also the Egyptians, and those of the Barbarians who
pride themselves upon their mysteries and the truth (which is concealed
within them); while the Jews alone, with their lawgiver and historians,
appear to you the most unintelligent of men? And is this the only nation
which has not received a share of divine power, and which yet was so
grandly instructed how to rise upwards to the uncreated nature of God, and
to gaze on Him alone, and to expect from Him alone (the fulfilment of)
their hopes?

CHAP. XXXIX.

   But as Celsus makes a jest also of the serpent, as counteracting the
injunctions given by God to the man, taking the narrative to be an old
wife's fable,(1) and has purposely neither mentioned the paradise(2) of
God, nor stated that God is said to have planted it in Eden towards the
east, and that there afterwards sprang up from the earth every tree that
was beautiful to the sight, and good for food, and the tree of life in the
midst of the paradise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and
the other statements which follow, which might of themselves lead a candid
reader to see that all these things had not inappropriately an allegorical
meaning, let us contrast with this the words of Socrates regarding Eros in
the Symposium of Plato, and which are put in the mouth of Socrates as being
more appropriate than what was said regarding him by all the others at the
Symposium. The words of Plato are as follow: "When Aphrodite was born, the
gods held a banquet, and there was present, along with the others, Porus
the son of Metis. And after they had dined, Penia(3) came to beg for
something (seeing there was an entertainment), and she stood at the gate.
Porus meantime, having become intoxicated with the nectar (for there was
then no wine), went into the garden of Zeus, and, being heavy with liquor,
lay down to sleep. Penia accordingly formed a secret plot, with a view of
freeing herself from her condition of poverty,(4) to get a child by Porus,
and accordingly lay down beside him, and became pregnant with Eros. And on
this account Eros has become the follower and attendant of Aphrodite,
having been begotten on her birthday feast,(5) and being at the same time
by nature a lover of the beautiful, because Aphrodite too is beautiful.
Seeing, then, that Eros is the son of Porus and Penia, the following is his
condition.(6) In the first place, he is always poor, and far from being
delicate and beautiful, as most persons imagine; but is withered, and
sunburnt,(7) and unshod, and without a home, sleeping always upon the
ground, and without a covering; lying in the open air beside gates, and on
public roads; possessing the nature of his mother, and dwelling continually
with indigence.(8) But, on the other hand, in conformity with the character
of his father, he is given to plotting against the beautiful and the good,
being courageous, and hasty, and vehement;(9) a keen(10) hunter, perpet-
ually devising contrivances; both much given to forethought, and also
fertile in resources;(11) acting like a philosopher throughout the whole of
his life; a terrible(12) sorcerer, and dealer in drugs, and a sophist as
well; neither immortal by nature nor yet mortal, but on the same day, at
one time he flourishes and lives when he has plenty, and again at another
time dies, and once more is recalled to life through possessing the nature
of his father. But the supplies furnished to him are always gradually
disappearing, so that he is never at any time in want, nor yet rich; and,
on the other hand, he occupies an intermediate position between wisdom and
ignorance."(13) Now, if those who read these words were to imitate the
malignity of Celsus--which be it far from Christians to do!--they would
ridicule the myth, and would turn this great Plato into a subject of jest;
but if, on investigating in a philosophic spirit what is conveyed in the
dress of a myth, they should be able to discover the meaning of Plato,
(they will admire)(14) the manner in which he was able to conceal, on
account of the multitude, in the form of this myth, the great ideas which
presented themselves to him, and to speak in a befitting manner to those
who know how to ascertain from the myths the true meaning of him who wove
them together. Now I have brought forward this myth occurring in the
writings of Plato, because of the mention in it of the garden of Zeus,
which appears to bear some resemblance to the paradise of God, and of the
comparison between Penia and the serpent, and the plot against Porus by
Penia, which may be compared with the plot of the serpent against the man.
It is not very clear, indeed, whether Plato fell in with these stories by
chance, or whether, as some think, meeting during his visit to Egypt with
certain individuals who philosophized on the Jewish mysteries, and learning
some things from them, he may have preserved a few of their ideas, and
thrown others aside, being careful not to offend the Greeks by a complete
adoption of all the points of the philosophy of the Jews, who were in bad
repute with the multitude, on account of the foreign character of their
laws and their peculiar polity. The present, however, is not the proper
time for explaining either the myth of Plato, or the story of the serpent
and the paradise of God, and all that is related to have taken place in it,
as in our exposition of the book of Genesis we have especially occupied
ourselves as we best could with these matters.

CHAP. XL.

   But as he asserts that "the Mosaic narrative most impiously represents
God as in a state of weakness from the very commencement (of things), and
as unable to gain over (to obedience) even one single man whom He Himself
had formed," we say in answer that the objection(1) is much the same as if
one were to find fault with the existence of evil, which God has not been
able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man
might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the
world untainted by sin. For as those whose business it is to defend the
doctrine of providence do so by means of arguments which are not to be
despised,(2) so also the subjects of Adam and his son will be
philosophically dealt with by those who are aware that in the Hebrew
language Adam signifies man; and that in those parts of the narrative which
appear to refer to Adam as an individual, Moses is discoursing upon the
nature of man in general.(3) For "in Adam" (as the Scripture(4) says) "all
die," and were condemned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, the word
of God asserting this not so much of one particular individual as of the
whole human race. For in the connected series of statements which appears
to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is
regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken
with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception.(5)
And the expulsion of the man and woman from paradise, and their being
clothed with tunics of skins (which God, because of the transgression of
men, made for those who had sinned), contain a certain secret and mystical
doctrine (far transcending that of Plato) of the souls losing its wings,(6)
and being borne downwards to earth, until it can lay hold of some stable
resting-place.

CHAP. XLI.

   After this he continues as follows: "They speak, in the next place, of
a deluge, and of a monstrous(7) ark, having within it all things, and of a
dove and a crow(8) as messengers, falsifying and recklessly altering(9) the
story of Deucalion; not expecting, I suppose, that these things would come
to light, but imagining that they were inventing stories merely for young
children." Now in these remarks observe the hostility--so unbecoming a
philosopher--displayed by this man towards this very ancient Jewish
narrative. For, not being able to say anything against the history of the
deluge, and not perceiving what he might have urged against the ark and its
dimensions,--viz., that, according to the general opinion, which accepted
the statements that it was three hundred cubits in length, and fifty in
breadth, and thirty in height, it was impossible to maintain that it
contained (all) the animals that were upon the earth, fourteen specimens of
every clean and four of every unclean beast,--he merely termed it
"monstrous, containing all things within it." Now wherein was its
"monstrous" character, seeing it is related to have been a hundred years in
building, and to have had the three hundred cubits of its length and the
fifty of its breadth contracted, until the thirty cubits of its height
terminated in a top one cubit long and one cubit broad? Why should we not
rather admire a structure which resembled an extensive city, if its
measurements be taken to mean what they are capable of meaning,(10) so that
it was nine myriads of cubits long in the base, and two thousand five
hundred in breadth?(11) And why should we not admire the design evinced in
having it so compactly built, and rendered capable of sustaining a tempest
which caused a deluge? For it was not daubed with pitch, or any material of
that kind, but was securely coated with bitumen. And is it not a subject of
admiration, that by the providential arrangement of God, the elements of
all the races were brought into it, that the earth might receive again the
seeds of all living things, while God made use of a most righteous man to
be the progenitor of those who were to be born after the deluge?

CHAP. XLII.

   In order to show that he had read the book of Genesis, Celsus rejects
the story of the dove, although unable to adduce any reason which might
prove it to be a fiction. In the next place, as his habit is, in order to
put the narrative in a more ridiculous light, he converts the "raven" into
a "crow," and imagines that Moses so wrote, having recklessly altered the
accounts related of the Grecian Deucalion; unless perhaps he regards the
narrative as not having proceeded from Moses, but from several individuals,
as appears from his employing the plural number in the expressions,
"falsifying and recklessly altering the story of Deucalion,"(12) as well as
from the words, "For they did not expect, I suppose, that these things
would come to light." But how should they, who gave their Scriptures to the
whale nation, not expect that they would come to light, and who predicted,
moreover, that this religion should be proclaimed to all nations? Jesus
declared, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof;"(1) and in uttering these words
to the Jews, what other meaning did He intend to convey than this, viz.,
that He Himself should, through his divine power, bring forth into light
the whole of the Jewish Scriptures, which contain the mysteries of the
kingdom of God? If, then, they peruse the Theogonies of the Greeks, and the
stories about the twelve gods, they impart to them an air of dignity, by
investing them with an allegorical signification; but when they wish to
throw contempt upon our biblical narratives, they assert that they are
fables, clumsily invented for infant children!

CHAP. XLIII.

   "Altogether absurd, and out of season,"(2) he continues, "is the
(account of the) begetting of children," where, although he has mentioned
no names, it is evident that he is referring to the history of Abraham and
Sarah. Cavilling also at the "conspiracies of the brothers," he allies
either to the story of Cain plotting against Abel,(3) or, in addition, to
that of Esau against Jacob;(4) and (speaking) of "a father's sorrow," he
probably refers to that of Isaac on account of the absence of Jacob, and
perhaps also to that of Jacob because of Joseph having been sold into
Egypt. And when relating the "crafty procedure of mothers," I suppose he
means the conduct of Rebecca, who contrived that the blessing of Isaac
should descend, not upon Esau, but upon Jacob. Now if we assert that in all
these cases God interposed in a very marked degree,(5) what absurdity do we
commit, seeing we are persuaded that He never withdraws His providence(6)
from those who devote themselves to Him in an honourable and vigorous(7)
life? He ridicules, moreover, the acquisition of property made by Jacob
while living with Laban, not understanding to what these words refer: "And
those which had no spots were Laban's, and those which were spotted were
Jacob's;"(8) and he says that "God presented his sons with asses, and
sheep, and camels,"(9) and did not see that "all these things happened unto
them for ensamples, and were written for our sake, upon whom the ends of
the world are come."(10) The varying customs (prevailing among the
different nations) becoming famous,(11) are regulated by the word of God,
being given as a possession to him who is figuratively termed Jacob. For
those who become converts to Christ from among the heathen, are indicated
by the history of Laban and Jacob.

CHAP. XLIV.

   And erring widely from the meaning of Scripture, he says that "God gave
wells(12) also to the righteous." Now he did not observe that the righteous
do not construct cisterns,(13) but dig wells, seeking to discover the
inherent ground and source of potable blessings,(14) inasmuch as they
receive in a figurative sense the commandment which enjoins, "Drink waters
from your own vessels, and from your own wells of fresh water. Let not your
water be poured out beyond your own fountain, but let it pass into your own
streets. Let it belong to you alone, and let no alien partake with
thee."(15) Scripture frequently makes use of the histories of real events,
in order to present to view more important truths, which are but obscurely
intimated; and of this kind are the narratives relating to the "wells," and
to the "marriages," and to the various acts of "sexual intercourse"
recorded of righteous persons, respecting which, however, it will be more
seasonable to offer an explanation in the exegetical writings referring to
those very passages. But that wells were constructed by righteous men in
the land of the Philistines, as related in the book of Genesis,(16) is
manifest from the wonderful wells which are shown at Ascalon, and which are
deserving of mention on account of their structure, so foreign and peculiar
compared with that of other wells. Moreover, that both young women(17) and
female servants are to be understood metaphorically, is not our doctrine
merely, but one which we have received from the beginning from wise men,
among whom a certain one said, when exhorting his hearers to investigate
the figurative meaning: "Tell me, ye that read the law, do ye not hear the
law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond maid,
the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after
the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an
allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from l the Mount Sinai,
which gendereth to bondage,  which is Agar."(1) And a little after, "But
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." And any
one who will take up the Epistle to the Galatians may learn how the
passages relating to the "marriages," and the intercourse with "the maid-
servants," have been allegorized; the Scripture desiring us to imitate not
the literal acts of those who did these things, but (as the apostles of
Jesus are accustomed to call them) the spiritual.

CHAP. XLV.

   And whereas Celsus ought to have recognised the love of truth displayed
by the writers of sacred Scripture, who have not concealed even what is to
their discredit,(2) and thus been led to accept the other and more
marvellous accounts as true, he has done the reverse, and has characterized
the story of Lot and his daughters (without examining either its literal or
its figurative meaning) as "worse than the crimes of Thyestes." The
figurative signification of that passage of history it is not necessary at
present to explain, nor what is meant by Sodom, and by the words of the
angels to him who was escaping thence, when they said: "Look not behind
thee, neither stay thou in all the surrounding district; escape to the
mountain, lest thou be consumed;"(3) nor what is intended by Lot and his
wife, who became a pillar of salt because she turned back; nor by his
daughters intoxicating their father, that they might become mothers by him.
But let us in a few words soften down the repulsive features of the
history. The nature of actions--good, bad, and indifferent--has been
investigated by the Greeks; and the more successful of such
investigators(4) lay down the principle that intention alone gives to
actions the character of good or bad, and that all things which are done
without a purpose are, strictly speaking, indifferent; that when the
intention is directed to a becoming end, it is praiseworthy; when the
reverse, it is censurable. They have said, accordingly, in the section
relating to" things indifferent," that, strictly speaking, for a man to
have sexual intercourse with his daughters is a thing indifferent, although
such a thing ought not to take place in established communities. And for
the sake of hypothesis, in order to show that such an act belongs to the
class of things indifferent, they have assumed the case of a wise man being
left with an only daughter, the entire  human race besides having perished;
and they put the question whether the father can fitly have intercourse
with his daughter, in order, agreeably to the supposition, to prevent the
extermination of mankind. Is this to be accounted sound reasoning among the
Greeks, and to be commended by the influential(5) sect of the Stoics; but
when young maidens, who had heard of the burning of the world, though
without comprehending (its full meaning), saw fire devastating their city
and country, and supposing that the only means left of rekindling the
flame(6) of human life lay in their father and themselves, should, on such
a supposition, conceive the desire that the world should continue, shall
their conduct be deemed worse than that of the wise man who, according to
the hypothesis of the Stoics, acts becomingly in having intercourse with
his daughter in the case already supposed, of all men having been
destroyed? I am not unaware, however, that some have taken offence at the
desire(7) of Lot's daughters, and have regarded their conduct as very
wicked; and have said that two accursed nations--Moab and Ammon--have
sprung from that unhallowed intercourse. And yet truly sacred Scripture is
nowhere found distinctly approving of their conduct as good, nor yet
passing sentence upon it as blameworthy. Nevertheless, whatever be the real
state of the case, it admits not only of a figurative meaning, but also of
being defended on its own merits.(8)

CHAP. XLVI.

   Celsus, moreover, sneers at the "hatred" of Esau (to which, I suppose,
he refers) against Jacob, although he was a man who, according to the
Scriptures, is acknowledged to have been wicked; and not clearly stating
the story of Simeon and Levi, who sallied out (on the She-chemites) on
account of the insult offered to their sister, who had been violated by the
son of the Shechemite king, he inveighs against their conduct. And passing
on, he speaks of" brothers selling (one another)," alluding to the sons of
Jacob; and of "a brother sold," Joseph to wit; and of "a father deceived,"
viz., Jacob, because he entertained no suspicion of his sons when they
showed him Joseph's coat of many colours, but believed their statement, and
mourned for his son, who was a slave in Egypt, as if he were dead. And
observe in what a spirit of hatred and falsehood Celsus collects together
the statements of the sacred history; so that wherever it appeared to him
to contain a ground of accusation he produces the passage, but wherever
there is any exhibition of virtue worthy of mention-as when Joseph would
not gratify the lust of his mistress, refusing alike her allurements and
her threats--he does not even mention the circumstance! He should see,
indeed, that the conduct of Joseph was far superior to what is related of
Bellerophon,(1) since the former chose rather to be shut up in prison than
do violence to his virtue. For although he might have offered a just
defence against his accuser, he magnanimously remained silent, entrusting
his cause to God.

CHAP. XLVII.

   Celsus next, for form's sake,(2) and with great want of precision,
speaks of "the dreams of the chief butler and chief baker, and of Pharaoh,
and of the explanation of them, in consequence of which Joseph was taken
out of prison in order to be entrusted by Pharaoh with the second place in
Egypt." What absurdity, then, did the history contain, looked at even in
itself, that it should be adduced as matter of accusation by this Celsus,
who gave the title of True Discourse to a treatise not containing
doctrines, but full of charges against Jews and Christians? He adds: "He
who had been sold behaved kindly to his brethren (who had sold him), when
they were suffering from hunger, and had been sent with their asses to
purchase (provisions);" although he has not related these occurrences (in
his treatise). But he does mention the circumstance of Joseph making
himself known to his brethren, although I know not with what view, or what
absurdity he can point out in such an occurrence; since it is impossible
for Momus himself, we might say, to find any reasonable fault with events
which, apart from their figurative meaning, present so much that is
attractive. He relates, further, that "Joseph, who had been sold as a
slave, was restored to liberty, and went up with a solemn procession to his
father's funeral," and thinks that the narrative furnishes matter of
accusation against us, as he makes the following remark: "By whom (Joseph,
namely) the illustrious and divine nation of the Jews, after growing up in
Egypt to be a multitude of people, was commanded to sojourn somewhere
beyond the limits of the kingdom, and to pasture their flocks in districts
of no repute." Now the words, "that they were commanded to pasture their
flocks in districts of no repute," are an addition, proceeding from his own
feelings of hatred; for he has not shown that Goshen, the district of
Egypt, is a place of no repute. The exodus of the people from Egypt he
calls a flight, not at all remembering what is written in the book of
Exodus regarding the departure of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt. We
have enumerated these instances to show that what, literally considered,
might appear to furnish ground of accusation, Celsus has not succeeded in
proving to be either objectionable or foolish, having utterly failed to
establish the evil character, as he regards it, of our Scriptures.

CHAP. XLVIII.

   In the next place, as if he had devoted himself solely to the
manifestation of his hatred and dislike of the Jewish and Christian
doctrine, he says: "The more modest of Jewish and Christian writers give
all these things an allegorical meaning;" and, "Because they are ashamed of
these things, they take refuge in allegory." Now one might say to him, that
if we must admit fables and fictions, whether written with a concealed
meaning or with any other object, to be shameful narratives when taken in
their literal acceptation,(3) of what histories can this be said more truly
than of the Grecian? In these histories, gods who are sons castrate the
gods who are their fathers, and gods who are parents devour their own
children, and a goddess-mother gives to the "father of gods and men" a
stone to swallow instead of his own son, and a father has intercourse with
his daughter, and a wife binds her own husband, having as her allies in the
work the brother of the fettered god and his own daughter! But why should I
enumerate these absurd stories of the Greeks regarding their gods, which
are most shameful in themselves, even though invested with an allegorical
meaning? (Take the instance) where Chrysippus of Soli, who is considered to
be an ornament of the Stoic sect, on account of his numerous and learned
treatises, explains a picture at Samos, in which Juno was represented as
committing unspeakable abominations with Jupiter. This reverend philosopher
says in his treatises, that  matter receives the spermatic words(4) of the
god, and retains them within herself, in order to  ornament the universe.
For in the picture at Samos Juno represents matter, and Jupiter god. Now it
is on account of these, and of countless other similar fables, that we
would not even in word call the God of all things Jupiter, or the sun
Apollo, or the moon Diana. But we offer to the Creator a worship which is
pure, and speak with religious respect of His noble works of creation, not
contaminating even in word the things of God; approving of the language of
Plato in the Philebus, who would not admit that pleasure was a goddess, "so
great is my reverence, Protarchus," he says, "for the very names of the
gods." We verily entertain such reverence for the name of God, and for His
noble works of creation, that we would not, even under pretext of an
allegorical meaning, admit any fable which might do injury to the young.

CHAP. XLIX.

   If Celsus had read the Scriptures in an impartial spirit, he would not
have said that "our writings are incapable of admitting an allegorical
meaning." For from the prophetic Scriptures, in which historical events are
recorded (not from the historical), it is possible to be convinced that the
historical portions also were written with an allegorical purpose, and were
most skilfully adapted not only to the multitude of the simpler believers,
but also to the few who are able or willing to investigate matters in an
intelligent spirit. If, indeed, those writers at the present day who are
deemed by Celsus the "more modest of the Jews and Christians" were the
(first) allegorical interpreters of our Scriptures, he would have the
appearance, perhaps, of making a plausible allegation. But since the very
fathers and authors of the doctrines themselves give them an allegorical
signification, what other inference can be drawn than that they were
composed so as to be allegorically understood in their chief
signification?(1) And we shall adduce a few instances out of very many to
show that Celsus brings an empty charge against the Scriptures, when he
says "that they are incapable of admitting an allegorical meaning." Paul,
the apostle of Jesus, says: "It is written in the law, Thou shalt not
muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care
for oxen? or saith He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt,
this is written, that he that plougheth should plough in hope, and he that
thresheth in hope of partaking."(2) And in another passage the same Paul
says: "For it is written, For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church."(3)
And again, in another place: "We know that all our fathers were under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in
the cloud, and in the sea."(4) Then, explaining the history relating to the
manna, and that referring to the miraculous issue of the water from the
rock, he continues as follows: "And they did all eat the same spiritual
meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ."(5) Asaph,
moreover, who, in showing the histories in Exodus and Numbers to be full of
difficulties and parables,(6) begins in the following manner, as recorded
in the book of Psalms, where he is about to make mention of these things:
"Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my
mouth. I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter dark sayings of old,
which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us."(7)

CHAP. L

   Moreover, if the law of Moses had contained nothing which was to be
understood as hating a secret meaning, the prophet would not have said in
his prayer to God, "Open Thou mine eyes, and I will behold wondrous things
out of Thy law;"(8) whereas he knew that there was a veil of ignorance
lying upon the heart of those who read but do not understand the figurative
meaning, which veil is taken away by the gift of God, when He hears him who
has done all that he can,(9) and who by reason of habit has his senses
exercised to distinguish between good and evil, and who continually utters
the prayer, "Open Thou mine eyes, and I will behold wondrous things out of
Thy law." And who is there that, on reading of the dragon that lives in the
Egyptian river,(10) and of the fishes which lurk in his scales, or of the
excrement of Pharaoh which fills the mountains of Egypt,(11) is not led at
once to inquire who he is that fills the Egyptian mountains with his
stinking excrement, and what the Egyptian mountains are; and what the
rivers in Egypt are, of which the aforesaid Pharaoh boastfully says, "The
rivers are mine, and I have made them;"(10) and who the dragon is, and the
fishes in its scales,--and this so as to harmonize with the interpretation
to be given of the rivers? But why establish at greater length what needs
no demonstration? For to these things applies the saying: "Who is wise, and
he shall understand these things? or who is prudent, and he shall know
them?"(12) Now I have gone at some length into the subject, because I
wished to show the unsoundness of the assertion of Celsus, that "the more
modest among the Jews and Christians endeavour somehow to give these
stories an allegorical signification, although some of them do not admit of
this, but on the contrary are exceedingly silly inventions." Much rather
are the stories of the Greeks not only very silly, but very impious
inventions. For our narratives keep expressly in view the multitude of
simpler believers, which was not done by those who invented the Grecian
fables. And therefore not without propriety does Plato expel from his state
all fables and poems of such a nature as those of which we have been
speaking.

CHAP. LI.

   Celsus appears to me to have heard that there are treatises in
existence which contain allegorical explanations of the law of Moses. These
however, he could not have read; for if he had he would not have said: "The
allegorical explanations, however, which have been devised are much more
shameful and absurd than the fables themselves, inasmuch as they endeavour
to unite with marvellous and altogether insensate folly things which cannot
at all be made to harmonize." He seems to refer in these words to the works
of Philo, or to those of still older writers, such as Aristobulus. But I
conjecture that Celsus has not read their books, since it appears to me
that in many passages they have so successfully hit the meaning (of the
sacred writers), that even Grecian philosophers would have been captivated
by their explanations; for in their writings we find not only a polished
style, but exquisite thoughts and doctrines, and a rational use of what
Celsus imagines to be fables in the sacred writings. I know, moreover, that
Numenius the Pythagorean--a surpassingly excellent expounder of Plato, and
who held a foremost place as a teacher of the doctrines of Pythagoras--in
many of his works quotes from the writings of Moses and the prophets, and
applies to the passages in question a not improbable allegorical meaning,
as in his work called Epops, and in those which treat of "Numbers" and of
"Place." And in the third book of his dissertation on The Good, he quotes
also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name--
and gives it an allegorical signification, whether successfully or the
reverse I may state on another occasion. He relates also the account
respecting Moses, and Jannes, and Jambres.(1) But we are not elated on
account of this instance, though we express our approval of Numenius,
rather than of Celsus and other Greeks, because he was willing to
investigate our histories from a desire to acquire knowledge, and was
(duly) affected by them as narratives which were to be allegorically
understood, and which did not belong to the category of foolish
compositions.

CHAP. LII.

   After this, selecting from all the treatises which  contain allegorical
explanations and interpretations, expressed in a language and style not to
be despised, the least important,(2) such as might contribute, indeed, to
strengthen the faith of the multitude of simple believers, but were not
adapted to impress those of more intelligent mind, he continues: "Of such a
nature do I know the work to be, entitled Controversy between one Papiscus
and Jason, which is fitted to excite pity and hatred instead of laughter.
It is not my purpose, however, to confute the statements contained in such
works; for their fallacy is manifest to all, especially if any one will
have the patience to read the books themselves. Rather do I wish to show
that Nature teaches this, that God made nothing that is mortal, but that
His works, whatever they are, are immortal, and theirs mortal. And the
soul(3) is the work of God, while the nature of the body is different. And
in this respect there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a
worm, or of a frog, and that of a man; for the matter(4) is the same, and
their corruptible part is alike." Nevertheless I could wish that every one
who heard Celsus declaiming and asserting that the treatise entitled
Controversy between Jason and Papiscus regarding Christ was fitted to
excite not laughter, but hatred, could fake the work into his hands, and
patiently listen to its contents; that, finding in it nothing to excite
hatred, he might condemn Celsus out of the book itself. For if it be
impartially perused, it will be found that there is nothing to excite even
laughter in a work in which a Christian is described as conversing with a
Jew on the subject of the Jewish Scriptures, and proving that the
predictions regarding Christ fitly apply to Jesus; although the other
disputant maintains the discussion in no ignoble style, and in a manner not
unbecoming the character of a Jew.

CHAP. LIII.

   I do not know, indeed, how he could conjoin things that do not admit of
union, and which cannot exist together at the same time in human nature, in
saying, as he did, that "the above treatise deserved to be treated both
with pity and hatred." For every one will admit that he who is the object
of pity is not at the same moment an object of hatred, and that he who is
the object of hatred is not at the same time a subject of pity. Celsus,
moreover, says that it was not his purpose to refute such statements,
because he thinks that their absurdity is evident to all, and that, even
before offering any logical refutation, they will appear to be bad, and to
merit both pity and hatred. But we invite him who peruses this reply of
ours to the charges of Celsus to have patience, and to listen to our sacred
writings themselves, and, as far as possible, to form an opinion from their
contents of the purpose of the writers, and of their consciences and
disposition of mind; for he will discover that they are men who strenuously
contend for what they uphold, and that some of them show that the history
which they narrate is one which they have both seen and experienced,(1)
which was miraculous, and worthy of being recorded for the advantage of
their future hearers. Will any one indeed venture to say that it is not the
source and fountain of all blessing(2) (to men) to believe in the God of
all things, and to perform all our actions with the view of pleasing Him in
everything whatever, and not to entertain even a thought unpleasing to Him,
seeing that not only our words and deeds, but our very thoughts, will be
the subject of future judgment? And what other arguments would more
effectually lead human nature to adopt a virtuous life, than the belief or
opinion that the supreme God beholds all things, not only what is said and
done, but even what is thought by us? And let any one who likes compare any
other system which at the same time converts and ameliorates, not merely
one or two individuals, but, as far as in it lies, countless numbers, that
by the comparison of both methods he may form a correct idea of the
arguments which dispose to a virtuous life.

CHAP. LIV.

   But as in the words which I quoted from Celsus, which are a paraphrase
from the Timoeus, certain expressions occur, such as, "God made nothing
mortal, but immortal things alone, while mortal things are the works of
others, and the soul is a work of God, but the nature of the body is
different, and there is no difference between the body of a man and that of
a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog; for the matter is the same, and their
corruptible part alike,"--let us discuss these points for a little; and let
us show that Celsus either does not disclose his Epicurean opinions, or, as
might be said by one person, has exchanged them for better, or, as another
might say, has nothing in common save the name, with Celsus, the Epicurean.
For he ought, in giving expression to such opinions, and in proposing to
contradict not only us, but the by no means obscure sect of philosophers
who are the adherents of Zeno of Citium, to have proved that the bodies of
animals are not the work of God, and that the great skill displayed in
their construction did not proceed from the highest intelligence. And he
ought also, with regard to the countless diversities of plants, which are
regulated by an inherent, incomprehensible nature,(3) and which have been
created for the by no means despicable(4) use of man in general, and of the
animals which minister to man, whatever other reasons may be adduced for
their existence,(5) not only to have stated his opinion, but also to have
shown us that it was no perfect intelligence which impressed these
qualities upon the matter of plants. And when he had once represented
(various) divinities as the creators of all the bodies, the soul alone
being the work of God, why did not he, who separated these great acts of
creation, and apportioned them among a plurality of creators, next
demonstrate by some convincing reason the existence of these diversities
among divinities, some of which construct the bodies of men, and others--
those, say, of beasts of burden, and others--those of wild animals? And he
who saw that some divinities were the creators of dragons, and of asps, and
of basilisks, and others of each plant and herb according to its species,
ought to have explained the causes of these diversities. For probably, had
he given himself carefully to the investigation of each particular point,
he would either have observed that it was one God who was the creator of
all, and who made each thing with a certain object and for a certain
reason; or if he had failed to observe this, he would have discovered the
answer which he ought to return to those who assert that corruptibility is
a thing indifferent in its nature; and that there was no absurdity in a
world which consists of diverse materials, being formed by one architect,
who constructed the different kinds of things so as to secure the good of
the whole. Or, finally, he ought to have expressed no opinion at all on so
important a doctrine, since he did not intend to prove what he professed to
demonstrate; unless, indeed, he who censures others for professing a simple
faith, would have us to believe his mere assertions, although he gave out
that he would not merely assert, but would prove his assertions.

CHAP. LV.

   But I maintain that, if he had the patience (to use his own expression)
to listen to the writings of Moses and the prophets, he would have had his
attention arrested by the circumstance that the expression "God made" is
applied to heaven and earth, and to what is called the firmament, and also
to the lights and stars; and after these, to the great fishes, and to every
living thing among creeping animals which the waters brought forth after
their kinds, and to every fowl of heaven after its kind; and after these,
to the wild beasts of the earth after their kind, and the beasts after
their kind, and to every creeping thing upon the earth after its kind; and
last of all to man. The expression "made," however, is not applied to other
things; but it is deemed sufficient to say regarding light, "And it was
light;" and regarding the one gathering together of all the waters that are
under the whole heaven, "It was so." And in like manner also, with regard
to what grew upon the earth, where it is said, "The earth brought forth
grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind and after its likeness, and
the fruit-tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after its kind,
upon the earth." He would have inquired, moreover, whether the recorded
commands of God respecting the coming into existence of each part of the
world were addressed to one thing or to several;(1) and he would not
lightly have charged with being unintelligible, and as having no secret
meaning, the accounts related in these books, either by Moses, or, as we
would say, by the Divine Spirit speaking in Moses, from whom also  he
derived the power of prophesying; since he "knew both the present, and the
future, and the past," in a higher degree than those priests who are
alleged by the poets to have possessed a knowledge of these things.

CHAP. LVI.

   Moreover, since Celsus asserts that "the soul is the work of God, but
that the nature of body is different; and that in this respect there is no
difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that
of a man, for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part alike,"--
we have to say in answer to this argument of his, that if, since the same
matter underlies the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, or of a
man, these bodies will differ in no respect from one another, it is evident
then that these bodies also will differ in no respect from the sun, or the
moon, or the stars, or the sky, or any other thing which is called by the
Greeks a god, cognisable by the senses.(2) For the same matter, underlying
all bodies, is, properly speaking, without qualities and without form, and
derives its qualities from some (other) source, I know not whence, since
Celsus will have it that nothing corruptible can be the work of God. Now
the corruptible part of everything whatever, being produced from the same
underlying matter, must necessarily be the same, by Celsus' own  showing;
unless, indeed, finding himself here hard pressed, he should desert Plato,
who makes  the soul arise from a certain bowl,(3) and take refuge with
Aristotle and the Peripatetics, who maintain that the ether is
immaterial,(4) and consists of a fifth nature, separate from the other four
elements,(5) against which view both the Platonists and the Stoics have
nobly protested. And we too, who are despised by Celsus, will contravene
it, seeing we are required to explain and maintain the following statement
of the prophet: The heavens shall perish, but Thou remainest: and they all
shall wax old as a garment; and as a vesture shall Thou fold them up, and
they shall be changed: but Thou art the same."(6) These remarks, however,
are sufficient in reply to Celsus, when he asserts that "the soul is the
work of God, but that the nature of body is different;" for from his
argument it follows that there is no difference between the body of a bat,
or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a heavenly(7) being.

CHAP. LVII.

   See, then, whether we ought to yield to one who, holding such opinions,
calumniates the Christians, and thus abandon a doctrine which explains the
difference existing among bodies as due to the different qualities,
internal and external, which are implanted in them. For we, too, know that
there are "bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial;" and that "the glory
of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial another;" and
that even the glory of the celestial bodies is not alike: for "one is the
glory of the sun, and another the glory of the stars;" and among the stars
themselves, "one star differeth from another star in glory."(8) And
therefore, as those who expect the resurrection of the dead, we assert that
the qualities which are in bodies undergo change: since some bodies, which
are sown in corruption, are raised in incorruption; and others, sown in
dishonour, are raised in glory; and others, again, sown in weakness, are
raised in power; and those which are sown natural bodies, are raised as
spiritual.(9) That the matter which underlies bodies is capable of
receiving those qualities which the Creator pleases to bestow, is a point
which all of us who accept the doctrine of providence firmly hold; so that,
if God so willed, one quality is at the present time implanted in this
portion of matter, and afterwards another of a different and better kind.
But since there are, from the beginning of the world, laws(10) established
for the purpose of regulating the changes of bodies, and which will
continue while the world lasts, I do not know whether, when a new and
different order of things has succeeded(1) after the destruction of the
world, and what our Scriptures call the end(2) (of the ages), it is not
wonderful that at the present time a snake should be formed out of a dead
man, growing, as the multitude affirm, out of the marrow of the back,(3)
and that a bee should spring from an ox, and a wasp from a horse, and a
beetle from an ass, and, generally, worms from the most of bodies, Celsus,
indeed, thinks that this can be shown to be the consequence of none of
these bodies being the work of God, and that qualities (I know not whence
it was so arranged that one should spring out of another) are not the work
of a divine intelligence, producing the changes which occur in the
qualities of matter.

CHAP. LVIII.

   But we have something more to say to Celsus, when he declares that "the
soul is the work of God, and that the nature of body is different," and
puts forward such an opinion not only without proof, but even without
clearly defining his meaning; for he did not make it evident whether he
meant that every soul is the work of God, or only the rational soul. This,
then, is what we have to say: If every soul is the work of God, it is
manifest that those of the meanest irrational animals are God's work, so
that the nature of all bodies is different from that of the soul. He
appears, however, in what follows, where he says that "irrational animals
are more beloved by God than we, and have a purer knowledge of divinity,"
to maintain that not only is the soul of man, but in a much greater degree
that of irrational animals, the work of God; for this follows from their
being said to be more beloved by God than we. Now if the rational soul
alone be the work of God, then, in the first place, he did not clearly
indicate that such was his opinion; and in the second place, this deduction
follows from his indefinite language regarding the soul--viz., whether not
every one, but only the rational, is the work of God--that neither is the
nature of all bodies different (from the soul). But if the nature of all
bodies be not different, although the body of each animal correspond to its
soul, it is evident that the body of that animal whose soul was the work of
God, would differ from the body of that animal in which dwells a soul which
was not the work of God. And so the assertion will be false, that there is
no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and
that of a man.

CHAP. LIX.

   For it would, indeed, be absurd that certain stones and buildings
should be regarded as more sacred or more profane than others, according as
they were constructed for the honour of God, or for the reception of
dishonourable and accursed persons;(4) while bodies should not differ from
bodies, according as they are inhabited by rational or irrational beings,
and according as these rational beings are the most virtuous or most
worthless of mankind. Such a principle of distinction, indeed, has led some
to deify the bodies of distinguished men,(5) as having received a virtuous
soul, and to reject and treat with dishonour those of very wicked
individuals. I do not maintain that such a principle has been always
soundly exercised, but that it had its origin in a correct idea. Would a
wise man, indeed, after the death of Anytus and Socrates, think of burying
the bodies of both with like honours? And would he raise the same mound or
tomb to the memory of both? These instances we have adduced because of the
language of Celsus, that "none of these is the work of God" (where the
words "of these" refer to the body of a man or to the snakes which come out
of the body and to that of an ox, or of the bees which come from the body
of an ox; and to that of a horse or of an ass, and to the wasps which come
from a horse, and the beetles which proceed from an ass); for which reason
we have been obliged to return to the consideration of his statement, that
"the soul is the work of God, but that the nature of body is different."

CHAP. LX.

   He next proceeds to say, that "a common nature pervades all the
previously mentioned bodies, and one which goes and returns the same amid
recurring changes."(6) In answer to this it is evident from what has been
already said that not only does a common nature pervade those bodies which
have been previously enumerated, but the heavenly bodies as well. And if
this is the case, it is clear also that, according to Celsus (although I do
not know whether it is according to truth), it is one nature which goes and
returns the same through all bodies amid recurring changes. It is evident
also that this is the case in the opinion of those who hold that the world
is to perish; while those also who hold the opposite view will endeavour to
show, with out the assumption of a fifth substance,(7) that in their
judgment too it is one nature "which goes and returns the same through all
bodies amid recurring changes." And thus, even that which is perishable
remains in order to undergo a change;(1) for the matter which underlies
(all things), while its properties perish, stir abides according to the
opinion of those who hold it to be uncreated. If, however, it can be shown
by any arguments not to be uncreated, but to have been created for certain
purposes, it is clear that it will not have the same nature of permanency
which it would possess on the hypothesis of being uncreated. But it is not
our object at present, in answering the charges of Celsus, to discuss these
questions of natural philosophy.

CHAP. LXI.

   He maintains, moreover, that "no product of matter is immortal." Now,
in answer to this it may be said, that if no product of matter is immortal,
then either the whole world is immortal, and thus not a product of matter,
or it is not immortal. If, accordingly, the world is immortal (which is
agreeable to the view of those who say that the soul alone is the work of
God, and was produced from a certain bowl), let Celsus show that the world
was not produced from a matter devoid of qualities, remembering his own
assertion that "no product of matter is immortal." If, however, the world
is not immortal (seeing it is a product of matter), but mortal, does it
also perish, or does it not? For if it perish, it will perish as being a
work of God; and then, in the event of the world perishing, what will
become of the saul, which is also a work of God? Let Celsus answer this!
But if, perverting the notion of immortality, he will assert that, although
perishable, it is immortal, because it does not really perish; that it is
capable of dying, but does not actually die,--it is evident that, according
to him, there will exist something which is at the same time mortal and
immortal, by being capable of both conditions; and that which does not die
will be mortal, and that which is not immortal by nature will be termed in
a peculiar sense immortal, because it does not die! According to what
distinction, then, in the meaning of words, will he maintain that no
product of matter is immortal? And thus you see that the ideas contained in
his writings, when closely examined and tested, are proved not to be sound
and incontrovertible.(2) And after making these assertions he adds: "On
this point these remarks are sufficient; and if any one is capable of
hearing and examining further, he will come to know (the truth)." Let us,
then, who in his opinion are unintelligent individuals, see what will
result from our being able to listen to him for a little, and so continue
our investigation.

CHAP. LXII.

   After these matters, then, he thinks that he can make us acquainted in
a few words with the questions regarding the nature of evil, which have
been variously discussed in many important treatises, and which have
received very opposite explanations. His words are: "There neither were
formerly, nor are there now, nor will there be again, more or fewer evils
in the world (than have always been). For the nature of all things is one
and the same, and the generation of evils is always the same." He seems to
have paraphrased these words from the discussions in the Theoetetus, where
Plato makes Socrates say: "It is neither possible for evils to disappear
from among men, nor for them to become established among the gods," and so
on. But he appears to me not to have understood Plato correctly, although
professing to include all truth(3) in this one treatise, and giving to his
own book against us the title of A True Discourse. For the language in the
Timoeus, where it is said, "When the gods purify the earth with water,"
shows that the earth, when purified with water, contains less evil than it
did before its purification. And this assertion, that there at one time
were fewer evils in the world, is one which we make, in harmony with the
opinion of Plato, because of the language in the Theoetetus, where he says
that "evils cannot disappear from among men."(4)

CHAP. LXIII.

   I do not understand how Celsus, while admitting the existence of
Providence, at least so far as appears from the language of this book, can
say that there never existed (at any time) either more or fewer evils, but,
as it were, a fixed number; thus annihilating the beautiful doctrine
regarding the indefinite s nature of evil, and asserting that evil, even in
its own nature,(6) is infinite. Now it appears to follow from the position,
that there never have been, nor are now, nor ever will be, more or fewer
evils in the world; that as, according to the view of those who hold the
indestructibility of the world, the equipoise of the elements is maintained
by a Providence (which does not permit one to gain the preponderance over
the others, in order to prevent the destruction of the world), so a kind of
Providence presides, as it were, over evils (the number of which is
fixed),(7) to prevent their being either increased or diminished! In other
ways, too, are the arguments of Celsus concerning evil confuted, by those
philosophers who have investigated the subjects of good and evil, and who
have proved also from history that in former times it was without the city,
and with their faces concealed by masks, that loose women hired themselves
to those who wanted them; that subsequently, becoming more impudent, they
laid aside their masks, though not being permitted by the laws to enter the
cities, they (still) remained without them, until, as the dissoluteness of
manners daily increased, they dared even to enter the cities. Such accounts
are given by Chrysippus in the introduction to his work on Good and Evil.
From this also it may be seen that evils both increase and decrease, viz.,
that those individuals who were called "Ambiguous"(1) used formerly to
present themselves openly to view, suffering and committing all shameful
things, while subserving the passions of those who frequented their
society; but recently they have been expelled by the authorities.(2) And of
countless evils which, owing to the spread of wickedness, have made their
appearance in human life, we may say that formerly they did not exist. For
the most ancient histories, which bring innumerable other accusations
against sinful men, know nothing of the perpetrators of abominable(3)
crimes.

CHAP. LXIV.

   And now, after these arguments, and others of a similar kind, how can
Celsus escape appearing in a ridiculous light, when he imagines that there
never has been in the past, nor will be in the future, a greater or less
number of evils? For although the nature of all things is one and the same,
it does not at all follow that the production of evils is a constant
quantity.(4) For although the nature of a certain individual is one and the
same, yet his mind, and his reason, and his actions, are not always
alike:(5) there being a time when he had not yet attained to reason; and
another, when, with the possession of reason, he had become stained with
wickedness, and when this increased to a greater or less degree; and again,
a time when he devoted himself to virtue, and made greater or less progress
therein, attaining sometimes the very summit of perfection, through longer
or shorter periods of contemplation.(6) In like manner, we may make the
same assertion in a higher degree of the nature of the universe,(7) that
although it is one and the same in kind, yet neither do exactly the same
things, nor yet things that are similar, occur in it; for we neither have
invariably productive nor unproductive seasons, nor yet periods of
continuous rain or of drought. And so in the same way, with regard to
virtuous souls, there are neither appointed periods of fertility nor of
barrenness; and the same is the case with the greater or less spread of
evil. And those who desire to investigate all things to the best of their
ability, must keep in view this estimate of evils, that their amount is not
always the same, owing to the working of a Providence which either
preserves earthly things, or purges them by means of floods and
conflagrations; and effects this, perhaps, not merely with reference to
things on earth, but also to the whole universe of things s I which stands
in need of purification, when the wickedness that is in it has become
great.

CHAP. LXV.

   After this Celsus continues: "It is not easy, indeed, for one who is
not a philosopher to ascertain the origin of evils, though it is sufficient
for the multitude to say that they do not proceed from God, but cleave to
matter, and have their abode among mortal things; while the course(9) of
mortal things being the same from beginning to end, the same things must
always, agreeably to the appointed cycles,(10) recur in the past, present,
and future." Celsus here observes that it is not easy for one who is not a
philosopher to ascertain the origin of evils, as if it were an easy matter
for a philosopher to gain this knowledge, while for one who is not a
philosopher it was difficult, though still possible, for such an one,
although with great labour, to attain it. Now, to this we say, that the
origin of evils is a subject which is not easy even for a philosopher to
master, and that perhaps it is impossible even for such to attain a clear
understanding of it, unless it be revealed to them by divine inspiration,
both what evils are, and how they originated, and how they shall be made to
disappear. But although ignorance of God is an evil, and one of the
greatest of these is not to know how God is to be served and worshipped,
yet, as even Celsus would admit, there are undoubtedly some philosophers
who have been ignorant of this, as is evident from the views of the
different philosophical sects; whereas, according to our judgment, no one
is capable of ascertaining the origin of evils who does not know that it is
wicked to suppose that piety is preserved uninjured amid the laws that are
established in different states, in conformity with the generally
prevailing ideas of government.(11) No one, moreover, who has not heard
what is related of him who is called "devil," and of his "angels," and what
he was before he became a devil, and how he became such, and what was the
cause of the simultaneous apostasy of those who are termed his angels, will
be able to ascertain the origin of evils. But he who would attain to this
knowledge must learn more accurately the nature of demons, and know that
they are not the work of God so far as respects their demoniacal nature,
but only in so far as they are possessed of reason; and also what their
origin was, so that they became beings of such a nature, that while
converted into demons, the powers of their mind(1) remain. And if there be
any topic of human investigation which is difficult for our nature to
grasp, certainly the origin of evils may be considered to be such.

CHAP. LXVI.

   Celsus in the next place, as if he were able to tell certain secrets
regarding the origin of evils, but chose rather to keep silence, and say
only what was suitable to the multitude, continues as follows: "It is
sufficient to say to the multitude regarding the origin of evils, that they
do not proceed from God, but cleave to matter, and dwell among mortal
things." It is true, certainly, that evils do not proceed from God; for
according to Jeremiah, one of our prophets, it is certain that "out of the
mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good."(2) But to maintain
that matter, dwelling among mortal things, is the cause of evils, is in our
opinion not true. For it is the mind of each individual  which is the cause
of the evil which arises in him, and this is evil (in the abstract);(3)
while the actions which proceed from it are wicked, and there is, to speak
with accuracy, nothing else in our view that is evil. I am aware, however,
that this topic requires very elaborate treatment, which (by the grace of
Cod enlightening the mind) may be successfully attempted by him who is
deemed by God worthy to attain the necessary knowledge on this subject.

CHAP. LXVII.

   I do not understand how Celsus should deem it of advantage, in writing
a treatise against us, to adopt an opinion which requires at least much
plausible reasoning to make it appear, as far as he can do so, that "the
course of mortal things is the same from beginning to end, and that the
same things must always, according to the appointed cycles, recur in the
past, present, and future." Now, if this be true, our free-will is
annihilated.(4) For if, in the revolution of mortal things, the same events
must perpetually occur in the past, present, and future, according to the
appointed cycles, it is clear that, of necessity, Socrates will always be.
a philosopher, and be condemned for introducing strange gods and for
corrupting the youth. And Anytus and Melitus must always be his accusers,
and the council of the Areopagus must ever condemn him to death by hemlock.
And in the same way, according to the appointed cycles, Phalaris must
always play the tyrant, and Alexander of Pherae commit the same acts of
cruelty, and those condemned to the bull of Phalaris continually pour forth
their wailings from it. But if these things be granted, I do not see how
our free-will can be preserved, or how praise or blame can be administered
with propriety. We may say further to Celsus, in answer to such a view,
that "if the course of moral things be always the same from beginning to
end, and if, according to the appointed cycles, the same events must always
occur in the past, present, and future," then, according to the appointed
cycles, Moses must again come forth from Egypt with the Jewish people, and
Jesus again come to dwell in human life, and perform the same actions which
(according to this view) he has done not once, but countless times, as the
periods have revolved. Nay, Christians too will be the same in the
appointed cycles; and Celsus will again write this treatise of his, which
he has done innumerable times before.

CHAP. LXVIII.

   Celsus, however, says that it is only "the course of mortal things
which, according to the appointed cycles, must always be the same in the
past, present, and future;" whereas the majority of the Stoics maintain
that this is the case not only with the course of mortal, but also with
that of immortal things, and of those whom they regard as gods. For after
the conflagration of the world,(5) which has taken place countless times in
the past, and will happen countless times in the future, there has been,
and will be, the same arrangement of all things from the beginning to the
end. The Stoics, indeed, in endeavouring to parry, I don't know how, the
objections raised to their views, allege that as cycle after cycle returns,
all men will be altogether unchanged(6) from those who lived in former
cycles; so that Socrates will not live again, but one altogether like to
Socrates, who will marry a wife exactly like Xanthippe, and will be accused
by men exactly like Anytus and Melitus. I do not understand, however, how
the world is to be always the same, and one individual not different from
another, and yet the things in it not the same, though exactly alike. But
the main argument in answer to the statements of Celsus and of the Stoics
will be more appropriately investigated elsewhere, since on the present
occasion it is not consistent with the purpose we have in view to expatiate
on these points.

CHAP. LXIX.

   He continues to say that "neither have visible things(1) been given to
man (by God), but each individual thing comes into existence and perishes
for the sake of the safety of the whole passing agreeably to the change,
which I have already mentioned, from one thing to another." It is
unnecessary, however, to linger over the refutation of these statements,
which have been already refuted to the best of my ability. And the
following, too, has been answered, viz., that "there will neither be more
nor less good and evil among mortals." This point also has been referred
to, viz., that "God does not need to amend His work afresh."(2) But it is
not as a man who has imperfectly designed some piece of workmanship, and
executed it unskilfully, that God administers correction to the world, in
purifying it by a flood or by a conflagration, but in order to prevent the
tide of evil from rising to a greater height; and, moreover, I am of
opinion that it is at periods which are precisely determined beforehand
that He sweeps wickedness away, so as to contribute to the good of the
whole world.(3) If, however, he should assert that, after the disappearance
of evil, it again comes into existence, such questions will have to be
examined in a special treatise.(4) It is, then, always in order to repair
what has become faulty s that God desires to amend His work afresh. For
although, in the creation of the world, all things had been arranged by Him
in the most beautiful and stable manner, He nevertheless needed to exercise
some healing power upon those who were labouring under the disease of
wickedness, and upon a whole world, which was polluted as it were thereby.
But nothing has been neglected by God, or will be neglected by Him; for He
does at each particular juncture what it becomes Him to do in a perverted
and changed world. And as a husbandman performs different acts of husbandry
upon the soil and its productions, according to the varying seasons of the
year, so God administers entire ages of time, as if they were, so to speak,
so many individual years, performing during each one of them what is
requisite with a reasonable regard to the care of the world; and this, as
it is truly understood by God alone, so also is it accomplished by Him.

CHAP. LXX.

   Celsus has made a statement regarding evils of the following nature,
viz., that "although a thing may seem to you to be evil, it is by no means
certain that it is so; for you do not know what is of advantage to
yourself, or to another, or to the whole world." Now this assertion is made
with a certain degree of caution;(6) and it hints that the nature of evil
is not wholly wicked, because that which may be considered so in individual
cases, may contain something which is of advantage to the whole community.
However, lest any one should mistake my words, and find a pretence of
wrongdoing, as if his wickedness were profitable to the world, or at least
might be so, we have to say, that although God, who preserves the free-will
of each individual, may make use of the evil of the wicked for the
administration of the world, so disposing them as to conduce to the benefit
of the whole; yet, notwithstanding, such an individual is deserving of
censure, and as such has been appointed for a use, which is a subject of
loathing to each separate individual, although of advantage to the whole
community.(7) It is as if one were to say that in the case of a city, a man
who had committed certain crimes, and on account of these had been
condemned to serve in public works that were useful to the community, did
something that was of advantage to the entire city, while he himself was
engaged in an abominable task,(8) in which no one possessed of moderate
understanding would wish to be engaged. Paul also, the apostle of Jesus,
teaches us that even the very wicked will contribute to the good of the
whole, while in themselves they will be amongst the vile, but that the most
virtuous men, too, will be of the greatest advantage to the world, and will
therefore on that account occupy the noblest position. His words are: "But
in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of
wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man
therefore purge himself, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and
meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work."(9) These remarks
I have thought it necessary to make in reply to the assertion, that
"although a thing may seem to you to be evil, it is by no means certain
that it is so, for you do not know what is of advantage either to yourself
or to another," in order that no one may take occasion from what has been
said on the subject to commit sin, on the pretext that he will thus be
useful to the world.

CHAP. LXXI.

   But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of
Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view,(1)
ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the
ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say that,
as we ourselves, when talking with very young children, do not aim at
exerting our own power of eloquence,(2) but, adapting ourselves to the
weakness of our charge, both say and do those thingS which may appear to us
useful for the correction and improvement of the children as children, so
the word of God appears to have dealt with the history, making the capacity
of the hearers, and the benefit which they were to receive, the standard of
the appropriateness of its announcements (regarding Him). And, generally,
with regard to such a style of speaking about God, we find in the book of
Deuteronomy the following: "The LORD thy God bare with your manners, as a
man would bear with the manners of his son."(3) It is, as it were, assuming
the manners of a man in order to secure the advantage of men that the
Scripture makes use of such expressions; for it would not have been
suitable to the condition of the multitude, that what God had to say to
them should be spoken by Him in a manner more befitting the majesty of His
own person. And yet he who is anxious to attain a true understanding of
holy Scripture, will discover the spiritual truths which are spoken by it
to those who are called "spiritual," by comparing the meaning of what is
addressed to those of weaker mind with what is announced to such as are of
acuter understanding, both meanings being frequently found in the same
passage by him who is capable of comprehending it.

CHAP. LXXII.

   We speak, indeed, of the "wrath" of God. We do not, however, assert
that it indicates any "passion" on His part, but that it is something which
is asumed in order to discipline by stern means those sinners who have
committed many and grievous sins. For that which is called God's "wrath,"
and "anger," is a means of discipline; and that such a view is agreeable to
Scripture, is evident from what is said in the sixth Psalm, "O LORD, rebuke
me not in Thine anger, neither chasten me in Thy hot displeasure;"(4) and
also in jeremiah. "O LORD, correct me, but with judgment: not in Thine
anger, lest Thou bring me to nothing."(5) Any one, moreover, who reads in
the second book of Kings of the "wrath" of God, inducing David to number
the people, and finds from the first book of Chronicles that it was the
devil who suggested this measure, will, on comparing together the two
statements, easily see for what purpose the "wrath" is mentioned, of which
"wrath," as the Apostle Paul declares, all men are children: "We were by
nature children of wrath, even as others."(6) Moreover, that "wrath" is no
passion on the part of God, but that each one bringS it upon himself by his
sins, will be clear from the further statement of Paul: "Or despisest thou
the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not
knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy
hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the
day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." How, then,
can any one treasure up for himself "wrath" against a "day of wrath," if
"wrath" be understood in the sense of "passion?" or how can the "passion of
wrath" be a help to discipline? Besides, the Scripture, which tells us not
to be angry at all, and which says in the thirty-seventh Psalm, "Cease from
anger, and forsake wrath,"(7) and which commands us by the mouth of Paul to
"put off all these, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy
communication,"(8) would not involve God in the same passion from which it
would have us to be altogether free. It is manifest, further, that the
language used regarding the wrath of God is to be understood figuratively
from what is related of His "sleep," from which, as if awaking Him, the
prophet says: "Awake, why sleepest Thou, Lord?"(9) and again: "Then the
Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by
reason of wine."(10) If, then, "sleep" must mean something else, and not
what the first acceptation of the word conveys, why should not "wrath" also
be understood in a similar way? The "threatenings," again, are intimations
of the (punishments) which are to befall the wicked: for it is as if one
were to call the words of a physician "threats," when he tells his
patients, "I will have to use the knife, and apply cauteries, if you do not
obey my prescriptions, and regulate your diet and mode of life in such a
way as I direct you." It is no human passions, then, which we ascribe to
God, nor impious opinions which we entertain of Him; nor do we err when we
present the various narratives concerning Him, drawn from the Scriptures
themselves, after careful comparison one with another. For those who are
wise ambassadors of the "word" have no other object in view than to free as
far as they can their hearers from weak opinions, and to endue them with
intelligence.

CHAP. LXXIII.

   And as a sequel to his non-understanding of the statements regarding
the "wrath" of God, he continues: "Is it not ridiculous to suppose that,
whereas a man, who became angry with the Jews, slew them all from the youth
upwards, and burned their city (so powerless were they to resist him), the
mighty God, as they say, being angry, and indignant, and uttering threats,
should, (instead of punishing them,) send His own Son, who endured the
sufferings which He did?" If the Jews, then, after the treatment which they
dared to inflict upon Jesus, perished with all their youth, and had their
city consumed by fire, they suffered this punishment in consequence of no
other wrath than that which they treasured up for themselves; for the
judgment of God against them, which was determined by the divine
appointment, is termed "wrath" agreeably to a traditional usage of the
Hebrews. And what the Son of the mighty God suffered, He suffered
voluntarily for the salvation of men, as has been stated to the best of my
ability in the preceding pages. He then continues: "But that I may speak
not of the Jews alone (for that is not my object), but of the whole of
nature, as I promised, I will bring out more clearly what has been already
stated." Now what modest man, on reading these words, and knowing the
weakness of humanity, would not be indignant at the offensive nature of the
promise to give an account of the "whole of nature," and at an arrogance
like that which prompted him to inscribe upon his book the title which he
ventured to give it (of a True Discourse)? But let us see what he has to
say regarding the "whole of nature," and what he is to place "in a clearer
light."

CHAP. LXXIV.

   He next, in many words, blames us for asserting that God made all
things for the sake of man. Because from the history of animals, and from
the sagacity manifested by them, he would show that all things came into
existence not more for the sake of man than of the irrational animals. And
here he seems to me to speak in a similar manner to those who, through
dislike of their enemies, accuse them of the same things for which their
own friends are commended. For as, in the instance referred to, hatred
blinds these persons from seeing that they are accusing their very dearest
friends by the means through which they think they are slandering their
enemies; so in the same way, Celsus also, becoming confused in his
argument, does not see that he is bringing a charge against the
philosophers of the Porch, who, not amiss, place man in the foremost rank,
and rational nature in general before irrational animals, and who maintain
that Providence created all things mainly on account of rational nature.
Rational beings, then, as being the principal ones, occupy the place, as it
were, of children in the womb, while irrational and soulless beings hold
that of the envelope which is created along with the child.(1) I think,
too, that as in cities the superintendents of the goods and market
discharge their duties for the sake of no other than human beings, while
dogs and other irrational animals have the benefit of the superabundance;
so Providence provides in a special manner for rational creatures; while
this l also follows, that irrational creatures likewise enjoy the benefit
of what is done for the sake of  man. And as he is in error who alleges
that the superintendents of the markets(2) make provision in no greater
degree for men than for dogs, because dogs also get their share of the
goods; so in a far greater degree are Celsus and they who think with him
guilty of impiety towards the God who makes provision for rational beings,
in asserting that His arrangements are made in no greater degree for the
sustenance of human beings than for that of plants, and trees, and herbs,
and thorns.

CHAP. LXXV.

   For, in the first place, he is of opinion that "thunders, and
lightnings, and rains are not the works of God,"--thus showing more clearly
at last his Epicurean leanings; and in the second place, that "even if one
were to grant that these were the works of God, they are brought into
existence not more for the support of us who are human beings, than for
that of plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns,"--maintaining, like a
true Epicurean, that these things are the product of chance, and not the
work of Providence. For  if these things are of no more use to us than to
plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns, it is evident either that they do
not proceed from Providence at all, or from a providence which does not
provide for us in a greater degree than for trees, and herbs, and thorns.
Now, either of these suppositions is impious in itself, and it would be
foolish to refute such statements by answering any one who brought against
us the charge of impiety; for it is manifest to every one, from what has
been said, who is the person guilty of impiety. In the next place, he adds:
"Although you may say that these things, viz., plants, and trees, and
herbs, and thorns, grow for the use of men, why will you maintain that they
grow for the use of men rather than for that of the most savage of
irrational animals?" Let Celsus then say distinctly that the great
diversity among the products of the earth is not the work of Providence,
but that a certain fortuitous concurrence of atoms(1) gave birth to
qualities so diverse, and that it was owing to chance that so many kinds of
plants, and trees, and herbs resemble one another, and that no disposing
reason gave existence to them,(2) and that they do not derive their origin
from an understanding that is beyond all admiration. We Christians,
however, who are devoted to the worship of the only God, who created these
things, feel grateful for them to Him who made them, because not only for
us, but also (on our account) for the animals which are subject to us, He
has prepared such a home,(3) seeing "He causeth the grass to grow for the
cattle, and herb for the service of man, that He may bring forth food out
of the earth, and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make
his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart."(4) But that
He should have provided food even for the most savage animals is not matter
of surprise, for these very animals are said by some who have philosophized
(upon the subject) to have been created for the purpose of affording
exercise to the rational creature. And one of our own wise men says
somewhere: "Do not say, What is this? or Wherefore is that? for all things
have been made for their uses. And do not say, What is this? or Wherefore
is that? for everything shall be sought out in its season."(5)

CHAP. LXXVI.

   After this, Celsus, desirous of maintaining that Providence created the
products of the earth, not more on our account than on that of the most
savage animals, thus proceeds: "We indeed by labour and suffering earn a
scanty and toilsome subsistence,(6) while all things are produced for them
without their sowing and ploughing." He does not observe that God, wishing
to exercise the human understanding in all countries (that it might not
remain idle and unacquainted with the arts), created man a being full of
wants,(7) in order that by virtue of his very needy condition he might be
compelled to be the inventor of arts, some of which minister to his
subsistence, and others to his protection. For it was better that those who
would not have sought out divine things, nor engaged in the study of
philosophy, should be placed in a condition of want, in order that they
might employ their understanding in the invention of the arts, than that
they should altogether neglect the cul-tivation of their minds, because
their condition was one of abundance. The want of the necessaries of human
life led to the invention on the one hand of the art of husbandry, on the
other to that of the cultivation of the vine; again, to the art of
gardening, and the arts of carpentry and smithwork, by means of which were
formed the tools required for the arts which minister to the support of
life. The want of covering, again, introduced the art of weaving, which
followed that of wool-carding and spinning; and again, that of house-
building: and thus the intelligence of men ascended even to the art of
architecture. The want of necessaries caused the products also of other
places to be conveyed, by means of the arts of sailing and pilotage,(8) to
those who were without them; so that even on that account one might admire
the Providence which made the rational being subject to want in a far
higher degree than the irrational animals, and yet all with a view to his
advantage. For the irrational animals have their food provided for them,
because there is not in them even an impulse(9) towards the invention of
the arts. They have, besides, a natural covering; for they are provided
either with hair, or wings, or scales, or shells. Let the above, then, be
our answer to the assertions of Celsus, when he says that "we indeed by
labour and suffering earn a scanty and toilsome subsistence, while all
things are produced for them without their sowing and ploughing."

CHAP. LXXVII.

   In the next place, forgetting that his object is to accuse both Jews
and Christians, he quotes against himself an iambic verse of Euripides,
which is opposed to his view, and, joining issue with the words, charges
them with being an erroneous statement. His words are as follow: "But if
you will quote the saying of Euripides, that

   'The Sun and Night are to mortals slaves,'(10)

why should they be so in a greater degree to us than to ants and flies? For
the night is created for them in order that they may rest, and the day that
they may see and resume their work." Now it is undoubted, that not only
have certain of the Jews and Christians declared that the sun and the
heavenly bodies(11) are our servants; but he also has said this, who,
according to some, is the philosopher of the stage,(1) and who was a hearer
of the lectures on the philosophy of nature delivered by Anaxagoras. But
this man asserts that all things in the world are subject to all rational
beings,--one rational nature being taken to represent all, On the principle
of a part standing for the whole;(2) which, again, clearly appears from the
verse:--

   "The Sun and Night are to mortals slaves."

Perhaps the tragic poet meant the day when he said the sun, inasmuch as it
is the cause of the day,--teaching that those things which most need the
day and night are the things which are under the moon, and other things in
a less degree than those which are upon the earth. Day and night, then, are
subject to mortals, being created for the sake of rational beings. And if
ants and flies, which labour by day and rest by night, have, besides, the
benefit of those things which were created for the sake of men, we must not
say that day and night were brought into being for the sake of ants and
flies, nor must we suppose that they were created for the sake of nothing,
but, agreeably to the design of Providence, were formed for the sake of
man.

CHAP. LXXVIII.

   He next proceeds further to object against himself(3) what is said on
behalf of man, viz., that the irrational animals were created on his
account, saying: "If one were to call us the lords of the animal creation
because we hunt the other animals and live upon their flesh, we would say,
Why were not we rather created on their account, since they hunt and devour
us? Nay, we require nets and weapons, and the assistance of many persons,
along with dogs, when engaged in the chase; while they are immediately and
spontaneously provided by nature with weapons which easily bring us under
their power." And here we may observe, that the gift of understanding has
been bestowed upon us as a mighty aid, far superior to any weapon which
wild beasts may seem to possess. We, indeed, who are far weaker in bodily
strength than the beasts, and shorter in stature than some of them, yet by
means of our understanding obtain the mastery, and capture the huge
elephants. We subdue by our gentle treatment those animals whose nature it
is to be tamed, while with those whose nature is different, or which do not
appear likely to be of use to us when tamed, we take such precautionary
measures, that when we desire it, we keep such wild beasts shut up; and
when we need the flesh of their bodies for food, we slaughter them, as we
do those beasts which are not of a savage nature. The Creator, then, has
constituted all things the servants of the rational being and of his
natural understanding. For some purposes we require dogs, say as guardians
of our sheep-folds, or of our cattle-yards, or goat-pastures, or of our
dwellings; and for other purposes we need oxen, as for agriculture; and for
others, again, we make use of those which bear the yoke, or beasts of
burden. And so it may be said that the race of lions, and bears, and
leopards, and wild boars, and such like, has been given to us in order to
call into exercise the elements of the manly character that exists within
us.

CHAP. LXXIX.

   In the next place, in answer to the human race, who perceive their own
superiority, which far exceeds that of the irrational animals, he says:
"With respect to your assertion, that God gave you the power to capture
wild beasts, and to make your own use of them, we would say that, in all
probability, before cities were built, and  arts invented, and societies
such as now exist were formed, and weapons and nets employed, men were
generally caught and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were very
seldom captured by men." Now, in reference to this, observe that although
men catch wild beasts, and wild beasts make prey of men, there is a great
difference between the case of such as by means of their understanding
obtain the mastery over those whose superiority consists in their savage
and cruel nature, and that of those who do not make use of their
understanding to secure their safety from injury by wild beasts. But when
Celsus gays, "before cities were built, and arts invented, and societies
such as now exist were formed," he appears to have forgotten what he had
before said, that "the world was uncreated and incorruptible, and that it
was only the things on earth which underwent deluges and conflagrations,
and that all these things did not happen at the same time." Now let if be
granted that these admissions on his part are entirely in harmony with our
views, though not at all with him and his statements made above; yet what
does it all avail to prove that in the beginning men were mostly captured
and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were never caught by men?
For, since the world was created in conformity with the will of Providence,
and God presided over the universe of things, it was necessary that the
elements(4) of the human race should at the commencement of its existence
be placed under some protection of the higher powers, so that there might
be formed from the beginning a union of the divine nature with that of men.
And the poet of Ascra, perceiving this, sings:--

   "For common then were banquets, and common were seats,
   Alike to immortal gods and mortal men."(1)

CHAP. LXXX.

   Those holy Scriptures, moreover, which bear the name of Moses,
introduce the first men as hearing divine voices and oracles, and beholding
sometimes the angels of God coming to visit them.(2) For it was probable
that in the beginning of the world's existence human nature would be
assisted to a greater degree (than afterwards), until progress had been
made towards the attainment of understanding and the other virtues, and the
invention of the arts, and they should thus be able to maintain life of
themselves, and no longer stand in need of superintendents, and of those to
guide them who do so with a miraculous manifestation of the means which
subserve the will of God. Now it follows from this, that it is false that
"in the beginning men were captured and devoured by wild beasts, while wild
beasts were very seldom caught by men." And from this, too, it is evident
that the following statement of Celsus is untrue, that "in this way God
rather subjected men to wild beasts." For God did not subject men to wild
beasts, but gave wild beasts to be a prey to the understanding of man, and
to the arts, which are directed against them, and which are the product of
the understanding. For it was not without the help of God(3) that men
desired for themselves the means of protection against wild beasts, and of
securing the mastery over them.

CHAP. LXXXI.

   Our noble opponent, however, not observing how many philosophers there
are who admit the existence of Providence, and who hold that Providence
created all things for the sake of rational beings, overturns as far as he
can those doctrines which are of use in showing the harmony that prevails
in these matters between Christianity and philosophy; nor does he see how
great is the injury done to religion from accepting the statement that
before God there is no difference between a man and an ant or a bee, but
proceeds to add, that "if men appear to be superior to irrational animals
on this account, that they have built cities, and make use of a political
constitution, and forms of government, and sovereignties,(4) this is to say
nothing to the purpose, for ants and bees do the same. Bees, indeed, have a
sovereign, who has followers and attendants; and there occur among them
wars and victories, and slaughterings of the vanquished,(5) and cities and
suburbs, and a succession of labours, and judgments passed upon the idle
and the wicked; for the drones are driven away and punished." Now here he
did not observe the difference that exists between what is done after
reason and consideration, and what is the result of an irrational nature,
and is purely mechanical. For the origin of these things is not explained
by the existence of any rational principle in those who make them, because
they do not possess any such principle; but the most ancient Being, who is
also the Son of God, and the King of all things that exist, has created an
irrational nature, which, as being irrational, acts as a help to those who
are deemed worthy of reason. Cities, accordingly, were established among
men, with many arts and well-arranged laws; while constitutions, and
governments, and sovereignties among men are either such as are properly so
termed, and which exemplify certain virtuous tendencies and workings, or
they are those which are improperly so called, and which were devised, so
far as could be done, in imitation of the former: for it was by
contemplating these that the most successful legislators established the
best constitutions, and governments, and sovereignties. None of these
things, however, can be found among irrational animals, although Celsus may
transfer rational names, and arrangements which belong to rational beings,
as cities and constitutions, and rulers and sovereignties, even to ants and
bees; in respect to which matters, however, ants and bees merit no
approval, because they do not act from reflection. But we ought to admire
the divine nature, which extended even to irrational animals the capacity,
as it were, of imitating rational beings, perhaps with a view of putting
rational beings to shame; so that by looking upon ants, for instance, they
might become more industrious and more thrifty in the management of their
goods; while, by considering the bees, they might place themselves in
subjection to their Ruler, and take their respective parts in those
constitutional duties which are of use in ensuring the safety of cities.

CHAP. LXXXII.

   Perhaps also the so-called wars among the bees convey instruction as to
the manner in which wars, if ever there arise a necessity for them, should
be waged in a just and orderly way among men. But the bees have no cities
or suburbs; while their hives and hexagonal cells, and succession of
labours, are for the sake of men, who require honey for many purposes, both
for cure of disordered bodies, and as a pure article of food. Nor ought we
to compare the proceedings taken by the bees against the drones with the
judgments and punishments inflicted on the idle and wicked in cities. But,
as I formerly said, we ought on the one hand in these things to admire the
divine nature, and on the other to express our admiration of man, who is
capable of considering and admiring all things (as co-operating with
Providence), and who executes not merely the works which are determined by
the providence of God, but also those which are the consequences of his own
foresight.

CHAP. LXXXIII.

   After Celsus has finished speaking of the bees, in order to depreciate
(as far as he can) the cities, and constitutions, and governments, and
sovereignties not only of us Christians, but of all mankind, as well as the
wars which men undertake on behalf of their native countries, he proceeds,
by way of digression, to pass a eulogy upon the ants, in order that, while
praising them, he may compare the measures which men take to secure their
subsistence with those adopted by these insects,(1) and so evince his
contempt for the forethought which makes provision for winter, as being
nothing higher than the irrational providence of the ants, as he regards
it. it. Now might not some of the more simple-minded, and such as know not
how to look into the nature of all things, be turned away (so far, at
least, as Celsus could accomplish it) from helping those who are weighed
down with the burdens (of life), and from sharing their toils, when he says
of the ants, that "they help one another with their loads, when they see
one of their number toiling under them?" For he who needs to be disciplined
by the word, but who does not at all understand(2) its voice, will say:
"Since, then, there is no difference between us and the ants, even when we
help those who are weary with bearing their heavy burdens, why should we
continue to do so to no purpose?" And would not the ants, as being
irrational creature, be greatly puffed up, and think highly of themselves,
because their works were compared to those of men? while men, on the other
hand, who by means of their reason are enabled to hear how their
philanthropy(3) towards others is contemned, would be injured, so far as
could be effected by Celsus and his arguments: for he does not perceive
that, while he wishes to turn away from Christianity those who read his
treatise, he turns away also the sympathy of those who are not Christians
from those who bear the heaviest burdens (of life). Whereas, had he been a
philosopher, who was capable of perceiving the good which men may do each
other, he ought, in addition to not removing along with Christianity the
blessings which are found amongst men, to have lent his aid to co-operate
(if he had it in his power) with those principles of excellence which are
common to Christianity and the rest of mankind. Moreover, even if the ants
set apart in a place by themselves those grains which sprout forth, that
they may not swell into bud, but may continue throughout the year as their
food, this is not to be deemed as evidence of the existence of reason among
ants, but as the work of the universal mother, Nature, which adorned even
irrational animals, so that even the most insignificant is not omitted, but
bears traces of the reason implanted in it by nature. Unless, indeed, by
these assertions Celsus means obscurely to intimate (for in many instances
he would like to adopt Platonic ideas) that all souls are of the same
species, and that  there is no difference between that of a man and those
of ants and bees, which is the act of one who would bring down the soul
from the vault of heaven, and cause it to enter not only a human body, but
that of an animal. Christians, however, will not yield their assent to such
opinions: for they have been instructed before now that the human soul was
created in the image of God; and they see that it is impossible for a
nature fashioned in the divine image to have its (original) features
altogether obliterated, and to assume others, formed after I know not what
likeness of irrational animals.

CHAP. LXXXIV.

   And since he asserts that, "when ants die, the survivors set apart a
special place (for their interment), and that their ancestral sepulchres
such a place is," we have to answer, that the greater the laudations which
he heaps upon irrational animals, so much the more does he magnify
(although against his will) the work of that reason which arranged all
things in order, and points out the skill(4) which exists among men, and
which is capable of adorning by its reason even the gifts which are
bestowed by nature on the irrational creation. But why do I say
"irrational," since Celsus is of opinion that these animals, which,
agreeably to the common ideas of all men, are termed irrational, are not
really so? Nor does he regard the ants as devoid of reason, who professed
to speak of "universal nature," and who boasted of his truthfulness in the
inscription of his book. For, speaking of the ants conversing with one
another, he uses the following language: "And when they meet one another
they enter into conversation, for which reason they never mistake their
way; consequently they possess a full endowment of reason, and some common
ideas on certain general subjects, and a voice by which they express
themselves regarding accidental things."(1) Now conversation between one
man and another is carried on by means of a voice, which gives expression
to the meaning intended, and which also gives utterances concerning what
are called "accidental things;" but to say that this was the case with ants
would be a most ridiculous assertion.

CHAP. LXXXV.

   He is not ashamed, moreover, to say, in addition to these statements
(that the unseemly character(2) of his opinions may be manifest to those
who will live after him): "Come now, if one were to look down from heaven
upon earth,  in what respect would our actions appear to differ from those
of ants and bees?" Now does he who, according to his own supposition, looks
from heaven upon the proceedings of men and ants, look upon their bodies
alone, and not rather have regard to the controlling reason which is called
into action by reflection;(3) while, on the other hand, the guiding
principle of the latter is irrational, and set in motion irrationally by
impulse and fancy, in conjunction with a certain natural apparatus?(4) But
it is absurd to suppose that he who looks from heaven upon earthly things
would desire to look from such a distance upon the bodies of men and ants,
and would not rather consider the nature of the guiding principles, and the
source of impulses, whether that be rational or irrational. And if he once
look upon the source of all impulses, it is manifest that he would behold
also the difference which exists, and the superiority of man, not only over
ants, but even over elephants. For he who looks from heaven will see among
irrational creatures, however large their bodies, no other principle(5)
than, so to speak, irrationality;(6) while amongst rational beings he will
discover reason, the common possession of men, and of divine and heavenly
beings, and perhaps of the Supreme God Himself, on account of which man is
said to have been created in the image of God, for the image of the Supreme
God is his reason.(7)

CHAP. LXXXVI.

   Immediately after this, as if doing his utmost to reduce the human race
to a still lower position, and to bring them to the level of the irrational
animals, and desiring to omit not a single circumstance related of the
latter which manifests their greatness, he declares that "in certain
individuals among the irrational creation there exists the power of
sorcery;" so that even in this particular men cannot specially pride
themselves, nor wish to arrogate a superiority over irrational creatures.
And the following are his words: "If, however, men entertain lofty notions
because of their possessing the power of sorcery, yet even in that respect
are serpents and eagles their superiors in wisdom; for they are acquainted
with many prophylactics against persons and diseases, and also with the
virtues of certain stones which help to preserve their young. If men,
however, fall in with these, they think that they have gained a wonderful
possession." Now, in the first place, I know not why he should designate as
sorcery the knowledge of natural prophylactics displayed by animals,--
whether that knowledge be the result of experience, or  of some natural
power of apprehension;(8) for the term "sorcery" has by usage been assigned
to something else. Perhaps, indeed, he wishes quietly, as an Epicurean, to
censure the entire use of such arts, as resting only on the professions of
sorcerers. However, let it be granted him that men do pride themselves
greatly upon the knowledge of such arts, whether they are sorcerers or not:
how can serpents be in this respect wiser than men, when they make use of
the well-known fennel(9) to sharpen their power of vision and to produce
rapidity of movement, having obtained this natural power not from the
exercise of reflection, but from the constitution of their body,(10) while
men do not, like serpents, arrive at such knowledge merely by nature, but
partly by experiment, partly by reason, and sometimes by reflection and
knowledge? So, if eagles, too, in order to preserve their young in the
nest, carry thither the eagle-stone(11) when they have discovered it, how
does it appear that they are wise, and more intelligent than men, who find
out by the exercise of their reflective powers and of their understanding
what has been bestowed by nature upon eagles as a gift?

CHAP. LXXXVII.

   Let it be granted, however, that there are other prophylactics against
poisons known to animals: what does that avail to prove that it is not
nature, but reason, which leads to the discovery of such things among them?
For if reason were the discoverer, this one thing (or, if you will, one or
two more things) would not be (exclusive(12) of all others) the sole
discovery made by serpents, and some other thing the sole discovery of the
eagle, and so on with the rest of the animals; but as many discoveries
would have been made amongst them as among men. But now it is manifest from
the determinate inclination of the nature of each animal towards certain
kinds of help, that they possess neither wisdom nor reason, but a natural
constitutional tendency implanted by the Logos(1) towards such things in
order to ensure the preservation of the animal. And, indeed, if I wished to
join issue with Celsus in these matters, I might quote the words of Solomon
from the book of Proverbs, which run thus: "There be four things which are
little upon the earth, but these are wiser than the wise: The ants are a
people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer; the conies(2)
are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks; the locusts
have no king, yet go they forth in order at one command; and the spotted
lizard,(3) though leaning upon its hands, and being easily captured,
dwelleth in kings' fortresses."(4) I do not quote these words, however, as
taking them in their literal signification, but, agreeably to the title of
the book (for it is inscribed "Proverbs"), I investigate them as containing
a secret meaning. For it is the custom of these writers (of Scripture) to
distribute into many classes those writings which express one sense when
taken literally,(5) but which convey a different signification as their
hidden meaning; and one of these kinds of writing is "Proverbs." And for
this reason, in our Gospels too, is our Saviour described as saying: "These
things have I spoken to you in proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall
no more speak unto you in proverbs."(6) It is not, then, the visible ants
which are "wiser even than the wise," but they who are indicated as such
under the "proverbial" style of expression. And such must be our conclusion
regarding the rest of the animal creation, although Celsus regards the
books of the Jews and Christians as exceedingly simple and commonplace,(7)
and imagines that those who give them an allegorical interpretation do
violence to the meaning of the writers. By what we have said, then, let it
appear that Celsus calumniates us in vain, and let his assertions that
serpents and eagles are wiser than men also receive their refutation.

CHAP. LXXXVIII.

   And wishing to show at greater length that even the thoughts of God
entertained by the human race are not superior to those of all other mortal
creatures, but that certain of the  irrational animals are capable of
thinking about Him regarding whom opinions so discordant have existed among
the most acute of mankind--Greeks and Barbarians--he continues: "If,
because man has been able to grasp the idea of God, he is deemed superior
to the other animals, let those who hold this opinion know that this
capacity will be claimed by many of the other animals; and with good
reason: for what would any one maintain to be more divine than the power of
foreknowing and predicting future events? Men accordingly acquire the art
from the other animals, and especially from birds. And those who listen to
the indications furnished by them, become possessed of the gift of
prophecy. If, then, birds, and the other prophetic animals, which are
enabled by the gift of God to foreknow events, instruct us by means of
signs, so much the nearer do they seem to be to the society of God, and to
be endowed with greater wisdom, and to be more beloved by Him. The more
intelligent of men, moreover, say that the animals hold meetings which are
more sacred than our assemblies, and that they know what is said at these
meetings, and show that in reality they possess this knowledge, when,
having previously stated that the birds have declared their intention of
departing to some particular place, and of doing this thing or the other,
the truth of their assertions is established by the departure of the birds
to the place in question, and by their doing what was foretold. And no race
of animals appears to be more observant of oaths than the elephants are, or
to show greater devotion to divine things; and this, I presume, solely
because they have some knowledge of God." See here now how he at once lays
hold of, and brings forward as acknowledged facts, questions which are the
subject of dispute among those philosophers, not only among the Greeks, but
also among the Barbarians, who have either discovered or learned from
certain demons some things about birds of augury and other animals, by
which certain prophetic intimations are said to be made to men. For, in the
first place, it has been disputed whether there is an art of augury, and,
in general, a method of divination by animals, or not. And, in the second
place, they who admit that there is an art of divination by birds, are not
agreed about the manner of the divination; since some maintain that it is
from certain demons or gods of divination s that the animals receive their
impulses to action--the birds to flights and sounds of different kinds, and
the other animals to movements of one sort or another. Others, again,
believe that their souls are more divine in their nature, and fitted to
operations of that kind, which is a most incredible supposition.

CHAP. LXXXIX.

   Celsus, however, seeing he wished to prove by the foregoing statements
that the irrational animals are more divine and intelligent than human
beings, ought to have established at greater length the actual existence of
such an art of divination, and in the next place have energetically
undertaken its defence, and effectually refuted the arguments of those who
would annihilate such arts of divination, and have overturned in a
convincing manner also the arguments of those who say that it is from
demons or from gods that animals receive the movements which lead them to
divination, and to have proved in the next place that the soul of
irrational animals is more divine than that of man. For, had he done so,
and manifested a philosophical spirit in dealing with such things, we
should to the best of our power have met his confident assertions, refuting
in the first place the allegation that irrational animals are wiser than
men, and showing the falsity of the statement that they have ideas of God
more sacred than ours, and that they hold among themselves certain sacred
assemblies. But now, on the contrary, he who accuses us because we believe
in the Supreme God, requires us to believe that the souls of birds
entertain ideas of God more divine and distinct than those of men. Yet if
this is true, the birds have clearer ideas of God than Celsus himself; and
it is not matter of surprise that it should be so with him, who so greatly
depreciates human beings. Nay, so far as Celsus can make it appear, the
birds possess grander and more divine ideas than, I do not say we
Christians do, or than the Jews, who use the same Scriptures with
ourselves, but even than are possessed by the theologians among the Greeks,
for they were only human beings. According to Celsus, indeed, the tribe of
birds that practise divination, forsooth, understand the nature of the
Divine Being better than Pherecydes, and Pythagoras, and Socrates and
Plato! We ought then to go to the birds as our teachers, in order that as,
according to the view of Celsus, they instruct us by their power of
divination in the knowledge of future events, so also they may free men
from doubts regarding the Divine Being, by imparting to them the clear
ideas which they have obtained respecting Him! It follows, accordingly,
that Celsus, who regards birds as superior to men, ought to employ them as
his instructors, and not one of the Greek philosophers.

CHAP. XC.

   But we have a few remarks to make, out of a larger number, in answer to
these statements of Celsus, that we may show the ingratitude towards his
Maker which is involved in his holding these false opinions.(1) For Celsus,
although a man, and "being in honour,"(2) does not possess understanding,
and therefore he did not compare himself with the birds and the other
irrational animals, which he regards as capable of divining; but yielding
to them the foremost place, he lowered himself, and as far as he could the
whole human race with him (as entertaining lower and inferior views of God
than the irrational animals), beneath the Egyptians, who worship irrational
animals as divinities. Let the principal point of investigation, however,
be this: whether there actually is or not an art of divination, by means of
birds and other living things believed to have such power. For the
arguments which tend to establish either view are not to be despised. On
the one hand, it is pressed upon us not to admit such an art, lest the
rational being should abandon the divine oracles, and betake himself to
birds; and on the other, there is the energetic testimony of many, that
numerous individuals have been saved from the greatest dangers by putting
their trust in divination by birds. For the present, however, let it be
granted that an art of divination does exist, in order that I may in this
way show to those who are prejudiced on the subject, that if this be
admitted, the superiority of man over irrational animals, even over those
that are endowed with power of divination, is great, and beyond all reach
of comparison with the latter. We have then to say, that if there was in
them any divine nature capable of foretelling future events, and so rich
(in that knowledge) as out of its superabundance to make them known to any
man who wished to know them, it is manifest that they would know what
concerned themselves far sooner (than what concerned others); and had they
possessed this knowledge, they would have been upon their guard against
flying to any particular place Where men had planted snares and nets to
catch them, or where archers took aim and shot at them in their flight. And
especially, were eagles aware beforehand of the designs formed against
their young, either by serpents crawling up to their nests and destroying
them, or by men who take them for their amusement, or for any other useful
purpose or service, they would not have placed their young in a spot where
they were to be attacked; and, in general, not one of these animals would
have been captured by men, because they were more divine and intelligent
than they.

CHAP. XCI.

   But besides, if birds of augury converse with one another,(1) as Celsus
maintains they do, the prophetic birds having a divine nature, and the
other rational animals also ideas of the divinity and foreknowledge of
future events; and if they had communicated this knowledge to others, the
sparrow mentioned in Homer would not have built her nest in the spot where
a serpent was to devour her and her young ones, nor would the serpent in
the writings of the same poet have failed to take precautions against being
captured by the eagle. For this wonderful poet says, in his poem regarding
the former:--

   "A mighty dragon shot, of dire portent;
   From Jove himself the dreadful sign was sent.
   Straight to the tree his sanguine spires he rolled,
   And curled around in many a winding fold.
   The topmost branch a mother-bird possessed;
   Eight callow infants filled the mossy nest;
   Herself the ninth: the serpent, as he hung,
   Stretched his black jaws, and crashed the dying young;
   While hovering near, with miserable moan,
   The drooping mother wailed her children gone.
   The mother last, as round the nest she flew,
   Seized by the beating wing, the monster slew:
   Nor long survived: to marble turned, he stands
   A lasting prodigy on Aulis' sands.
   Such was the will of Jove; and hence we dare
   Trust in his omen, and support the war."(2)

And regarding the second--the bird--the poet says:--

   "Jove's bird on sounding pinions beat the skies;
   A bleeding serpent of enormous size,
   His talons twined; alive, and curling round,
   He stung the bird, whose throat received the wound.
   Mad with the smart, he drops the fatal prey,
   In airy circles wings his painful way,
   Floats on the winds, and rends the heaven with cries;
   Amidst the host, the fallen serpent lies.
   They, pale with terror, mark its spires unrolled,
   And Jove's portent with beating hearts behold."(3)

Did the eagle, then, possess the power of divination, and the serpent
(since this animal also is made use of by the augurs) not? But as this
distinction can be easily refuted, cannot the assertion that both were
capable of divination be refuted also? For if the serpent had possessed
this knowledge, would not he have been on his guard against suffering what
he did from the eagle? And innumerable other instances of a similar
character may be found, to show that animals do not possess a prophetic
soul, but that, according to the poet and the majority of mankind, it is
the "Olympian himself who sent him to the light." And it is with a
symbolical meaning(4) that Apollo employs the hawks as his messenger, for
the hawk(6) is called the "swift messenger of Apollo."(7)

CHAP. XCII.

   In my opinion, however, it is certain wicked demons, and, so to speak,
of the race of Titans or Giants, who have been guilty of impiety towards
the true God, and towards the angels in heaven, and who have fallen from
it, and who haunt the denser parts of bodies, and frequent unclean places
upon earth, and who, possessing some power of distinguishing future events,
because they are without bodies of earthly material, engage in an
employment of this kind, and desiring to lead the human race away from the
true God, secretly enter the bodies of the more rapacious and savage and
wicked of animals, and stir them up to do whatever they choose, and at
whatever time they choose: either turning the fancies of these animals to
make flights and movements of various kinds, in order that men may be
caught by the divining power that is in the irrational animals, and neglect
to seek after the God who contains all things; or to search after the pure
worship of God, but allow their reasoning powers to grovel on the earth,
and amongst birds and serpents, and even foxes and wolves. For it has been
observed by those who are skilled in such matters, that the clearest
prognostications are obtained from animals of this kind; because the demons
cannot act so effectively in the milder sort of animals as they can in
these, in consequence of the similarity between them in point of
wickedness; and yet it is not wickedness, but something like wickedness,(8)
which exist in these animals.

CHAP. XCIII.

   For which reason, whatever else there may be in the writings of Moses
which excites my wonder, I would say that the following is worthy of
admiration, viz. that Moses, having observed the varying natures of
animals, and having either learned from God what was peculiar to them, and
to the demons which are kindred to each of the animals, or having himself
ascertained these things by his own wisdom, has, in arranging the different
kinds of animals, pronounced all those which are supposed by the Egyptians
and the rest of mankind to possess the power of divination to be unclean,
and, as a general rule, all that are not of that class to be clean. And
amongst the unclean animals mentioned by Moses are the wolf, and fox, and
serpent, and eagle, and hawk, and such like. And, generally speaking, you
will find that not only in the law, but also in the prophets, these animals
are employed as examples of all that is most wicked; and that a wolf or a
fox is never mentioned for a good purpose. Each species of demon,
consequently, would seem to possess a certain affinity with a certain
species of animal. And as among men there are some who are stronger than
others, and this not at all owing to their moral character, so, in the same
way, some demons will be more powerful in things indifferent than
others;(1) and one class of them employs one kind of animal for the purpose
of deluding men, in accordance with the will of him who is called in our
Scriptures the "prince of this world," while others predict future events
by means of another kind of animal. Observe, moreover, to what a pitch of
wickedness the demons proceed, so that they even assume the bodies of
weasels in order to reveal the future! And now, consider with yourself
whether it is better to accept the belief that it is the Supreme God and
His Son who stir up the birds and the other living creatures to divination,
or that those who stir up these creatures, and not human beings (although
they are present before them), are wicked, and, as they are called by our
Scriptures, unclean demons.

CHAP. XCIV.

   But if the soul of birds is to be esteemed divine because future events
are predicted by them, why should we not rather maintain, that when
omens(2) are accepted by men, the souls of those are divine through which
the omens are heard? Accordingly, among such would be ranked the female
slave mentioned in Homer, who ground the corn, when she said regarding the
suitors:--

   "For the very last time, now, will they sup here."(3)

This slave, then, was divine, while the great Ulysses, the friend of
Homer's Pallas Athene, was not divine, but understanding the words spoken
by this "divine" grinder of corn as an omen, rejoiced, as the poet says:--

   "The divine Ulysses rejoiced at the omen."

(4) Observe, now, as the birds are possessed of a divine soul, and are
capable of perceiving God, or, as Celsus says, the gods, it is clear that
when we men also sneeze, we do so in consequence of a kind of divinity that
is within us, and which imparts a prophetic power to our soul. For this
belief is testified by many witnesses, and therefore the poet also says:--

   "And while he prayed, he sneezed."(5)

And Penelope, too, said:--

   "Perceiv'st thou not that at every word my son did sneeze?"(6)

CHAP. XCV.

   The true God, however, neither employs irrational animals, nor any
individuals whom chance may offer,(7) to convey a knowledge of the future;
but, on the contrary, the most pure and holy of human souls, whom He
inspires and endows with prophetic power. And therefore, whatever else in
the Mosaic writings may excite our wonder, the following must be considered
as fitted to do so: "Ye shall not practise augury, nor observe the flight
of birds;"(8) and in another place: "For the nations whom the LORD thy God
will destroy from before thy face, shall listen to omens and divinations;
but as for thee, the LORD thy God has not suffered thee to do so."(9) And
he adds: "A prophet shall the LORD your God raise up unto you from among
your brethren."(10) On one occasion, moreover, God, wishing by means of an
augur to turn away (His people) from the practice of divination, caused the
spirit that was in the augur to speak as follows: "For there is no
enchantment in Jacob, nor is there divination in Israel. In due time will
it be declared to Jacob and Israel what the Lord will do."(11) And now, we
who knew these and similar sayings wish to observe this precept with the
mystical meaning, viz., "Keep thy heart with all diligence,"(12) that
nothing of a demoniacal nature may enter into our minds, or any spirit of
our adversaries turn our imagination whither it chooses. But we pray that
the light of the knowledge of the glory of God may shine in our hearts, and
that the Spirit of God may dwell in our imaginations, and lead them to
contemplate the things of God; for "as many as are led by the Spirit of
God, they are the sons of God."(13)

CHAP. XCVI.

   We ought to take note, however, that the power of foreknowing the
future is by no means a proof of divinity; for in itself it is a thing
indifferent, and is found occurring amongst both good and bad. Physicians,
at any rate, by means of their professional skill foreknow certain things,
although their character may happen to be bad. And in the same way also
pilots, although perhaps wicked men, are able to foretell the signs(14) (of
good or bad weather), and the approach of violent tempests of wind, and
atmospheric changes,(15) because they gather this knowledge from experience
and observation, although I do not suppose that on that account any one
would term them "gods" if their characters happened to be bad. The
assertion, then, of Celsus is false, when he says: "What could be called
more divine than the power of foreknowing and foretelling the future?" And
so also is this, that "many of the animals claim to have ideas of God;" for
none of the irrational animals possess any idea of God. And wholly false,
too, is his assertion, that "the irrational animals are nearer the society
of God (than men)," when even men who are still in a state of wickedness,
however great their progress in knowledge, are far removed from that
society. It is, then, those alone who are truly wise and sincerely
religious who are nearer to God's society; such persons as were our
prophets, and Moses, to the latter of whom, on account of his exceeding
purity, the Scripture said: "Moses alone shall come near the LORD, but the
rest shall not come nigh."(1)

CHAP. XCVII.

   How impious, indeed, is the assertion of this man, who charges us with
impiety, that "not only are the irrational animals wiser than the human
race, but that they are more beloved by God (than they)!" And who would not
be repelled (by horror) from paying any attention to a man who declared
that a serpent, and a fox, and a wolf, and an eagle, and a hawk, were more
beloved by God than the human race? For it follows from his maintaining
such a position, that if these animals be more beloved by God than human
beings, it is manifest that they are dearer to God than Socrates, and
Plato, and Pythagoras, and Pherecydes, and those theologians whose praises
he had sung a little before. And one might address him with the prayer: "If
these animals be dearer to God than men, may you be beloved of God along
with them, and be made like to those whom you consider as dearer to Him
than human beings!" And let no one suppose that such a prayer is meant as
an imprecation; for who would not pray to resemble in all respects those
whom he believes to be dearer to God than others, in order that he, like
them, may enjoy the divine love? And as Celsus is desirous to show that the
assemblies of the irrational animals are more sacred than ours, he ascribes
the statement to that effect not to any ordinary individuals, but to
persons of intelligence. Yet it is the virtuous alone who are truly wise,
for no wicked man is so. He speaks, accordingly, in the following style:
"Intelligent men say that these animals hold assemblies which are more
sacred than ours, and that they know what is spoken at them, and actually
prove that they are not without such knowledge, when they mention
beforehand that the birds have announced their intention of departing to a
particular place, or of doing this thing or that, and then show that they
have departed to the place in question, and have done the particular thing
which was foretold." Now, truly, no person of intelligence ever related
such things; nor did any wise man ever say that the assemblies of the
irrational animals were more sacred than those of men. But if, for the
purpose of examining (the soundness of) his statements, we look to their
consequences, it is evident that, in his opinion, the assemblies of the
irrational animals are more sacred than those of the venerable Pherecydes,
and Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato, and of philosophers in general;
which assertion is not only incongruous(2) in itself, but full of
absurdity. In order that we may believe, however, that certain individuals
do learn from the indistinct sound of birds that they are about to take
their departure, and do this thing or that, and announce these things
beforehand, we would say that this information is imparted to men by demons
by means of signs, with the view of having men deceived by demons, and
having their understanding dragged down from God and heaven to earth, and
to places lower still.

CHAP. XCVIII.

   I do not know, moreover, how Celsus could hear of the elephants'
(fidelity to) oaths, and of their great devotedness to our God, and of the
knowledge which they possess of Him. For I know many wonderful things which
are related of the nature of this animal, and of its gentle disposition.
But I am not aware that any one has spoken of its observance of oaths;
unless indeed to its gentle disposition, and its observance of compacts, so
to speak, when once concluded between it and man, he give the name of
keeping its oath, which statement also in itself is false. For although
rarely, yet sometimes it has been recorded that, after their apparent
tameness, they have broken out against men in the most savage manner, and
have committed murder, and have been on that account condemned to death,
because no longer of any use. And seeing that after this, in order to
establish (as he thinks he does) that the stork is more pious than any
human being, he adduces the accounts which are narrated regarding that
creature's display of filial affection(3) in bringing food to its parents
for their support, we have to say in reply, that this is done by the
storks, not from a regard to what is proper, nor from reflection, but from
a natural instinct; the nature which formed them being desirous to show an
instance among the irrational animals which might put men to shame, in the
matter of exhibiting their gratitude to their parents. And if Celsus had
known how great the difference is between acting in this way from reason,
and from an irrational natural impulse, he would not have said that storks
are more pious than human beings. But further, Celsus, as still contending
for the piety of the irrational creation, quotes the instance of the
Arabian bird the phoenix, which after many years repairs to Egypt, and
bears thither its parent, when dead and buried in a ball of myrrh, and
deposits its body in the Temple of the Sun. Now this story is indeed
recorded, and, if it be true,(1) it is possible that it may occur in
consequence of some provision of nature; divine providence freely
displaying to human beings, by the differences which exist among living
things, the variety of constitution which prevails in the world, and which
extends even to birds, and in harmony with which He has brought into
existence one creature, the only one of its kind, in order that by it men
may be led to admire, not the creature, but Him who created it.

CHAP. XCIX.

   In addition to all that he has already said, Celsus subjoins the
following: "All things, accordingly, were not made for man, any more than
they were made for lions, or eagles, or dolphins, but that this world, as
being God's work, might be perfect and entire in all respects. For this
reason all things have been adjusted, not with reference to each other, but
with regard to their bearing upon the whole.(2) And God takes care of the
whole, and (His) providence will never forsake it; and it does not become
worse; nor does God after a time bring it back to himself; nor is He angry
on account of men any more than on account of apes or flies; nor does He
threaten these beings, each one of which has received its appointed lot in
its proper place." Let us then briefly reply to these statements. I think,
indeed, that I have shown in the preceding pages that all things were
created for man, and every rational being, and that it was chiefly for the
sake of the rational creature that the creation took place. Celsus, indeed,
may say that this was done not more for man than for lions, or the other
creatures which he mentions; but we maintain that the Creator did not form
these things for lions, or eagles, or dolphins, but all for the sake of the
rational creature, and "in order that this world, as being God's work,
might be perfect and complete in all things." For to this sentiment we must
yield our assent as being well said. And God takes care, not, as Celsus
supposes, merely of the whole, but beyond the whole, in a special degree of
every rational being. Nor will Providence ever abandon the whole; for
although it should become more wicked, owing to the sin of the rational
being, which is a portion of the whole, He makes arrangements to purify it,
and after a time to bring back the whole to Himself. Moreover, He is not
angry with apes or flies; but on human beings, as those who have
transgressed the laws of nature, He sends judgments and chastisements, and
threatens them by the mouth of the prophets, and by the Saviour who came to
visit the whole human race, that those who hear the threatenings may be
converted by them, while those who neglect these calls to conversion may
deservedly suffer those punishments which it becomes God, in conformity
with that will of His which acts for the advantage of the whole, to inflict
upon those who need such painful discipline and correction. But as our
fourth book has now attained sufficient dimensions, we shall here terminate
our discourse. And may God grant, through His Son, who is God the Word, and
Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, and everything else which the sacred
Scriptures when speaking of God call Him, that we may make a good beginning
of the fifth book, to the benefit of our readers, and may bring it to a
successful conclusion, with the aid of His word abiding in our soul.

ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS.

BOOK V.

CHAP. I.

   IT is not, my reverend Ambrosius, because we seek after many words--a
thing which is forbidden, and in the indulgence of which it is impossible
to avoid sin(1)--that we now begin the fifth book of our reply to the
treatise of Celsus, but with the endeavour, so far as may be within our
power, to leave none of his statements without examination, and especially
those in which it might appear to some that he had skilfully assailed us
and the Jews. If it were possible, indeed, for me to enter along with my
words into the conscience of every one without exception who perUses this
work, and to extract each dart which wounds him who is not completely
protected with the "whole armour" of God, and apply a rational medicine to
cure the wound inflicted by Celsus, which prevents those who listen to his
words from remaining "sound in the faith," I would do so. But since it is
the work of God alone, in conformity with His own Spirit, and along with
that of Christ, to take up His abode invisibly in those persons whom He
judges worthy of being visited; so, on the other hand, is our object to
try, by means of arguments and treatises, to confirm men in their faith,
and to earn the name of "workmen needing not to be ashamed, tightly
dividing the word of truth."(2) And there is one thing above all which it
appears to us we ought to do, if we would discharge faithfully the task
enjoined upon us by you, and that is to overturn to the best of our ability
the confident assertions of Celsus. Let us then quote such assertions of
his as follow those which we have already refuted (the reader: must decide
whether we have done so successfully or not), and let us reply to them. And
may God grant that we approach not our subject with our understanding and
reason empty and devoid of divine inspiration, that the faith of those whom
we wish to aid may not depend upon human wisdom, but that, receiving the
"mind" of Christ from His Father, who alone can bestow it, and being
strengthened by participating in the word of God, we may pull down "every
high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,"(3) and the
imagination of Celsus, who exalts himself against us, and against Jesus,
and also against Moses and the prophets, in order that He who "gave the
word to those who published it with great power"(4) may supply us also, and
bestow upon us "great power," so that faith in the word and power of God
may be implanted in the minds of all who will peruse our work.

CHAP. II.

   We have now, then, to refute that statement of his which runs as
follows: "O Jews and Christians, no God or son of a God either came or will
come down (to earth). But if you mean that certain angels did so, then what
do you call them? Are they gods, or some other race of beings? Some other
race of beings (doubtless), and in all probability demons." Now as Celsus
here is guilty of repeating himself (for in the preceding pages such
assertions have been frequently advanced by him), it is unnecessary to
discuss the matter at greater length, seeing what we have already said upon
this point may suffice. We shall mention, however, a few considerations out
of a greater number, such as we deem in harmony with our former arguments,
but which have not altogether the same bearing as they, and by which we
shall show that in asserting generally that no God, or son of God, ever
descended (among men), he overturns not only the opinions entertained by
the majority of mankind regarding the manifestation of Deity, but also what
was formerly admitted by himself. For if the general statement, that "no
God or son of God has come down or will come down," be truly maintained by
Celsus, it is manifest that we have here overthrown the belief in the
existence of gods upon the earth who had descended from heaven either to
predict the future to mankind or to heal them by means of divine responses;
and neither the Pythian Apollo, nor AEsculapius, nor any other among those
supposed to have done so, would be a god descended from  heaven. He might,
indeed, either be a god who  had obtained as his lot (the obligation) to
dwell on earth for ever, and be thus a fugitive, as it were, from the abode
of the gods, or he might  be one who had no power to share in the society
of the gods in heaven;(1) or else Apollo, and AEsculapius, and those others
who are believed to perform acts on earth, would not be gods, but only
certain demons, much inferior to those wise men among mankind, who on
account of their virtue ascend to the vault(2) of heaven.

CHAP. III.

   But observe how, in his desire to subvert our opinions, he who never
acknowledged himself throughout his whole treatise to be an Epicurean, is
convicted of being a deserter to that sect. And now is the time for you,
(reader), who peruse the works of Celsus, and give your assent to what has
been advanced, either to overturn the belief in a God who visits the human
race, and exercises a providence over each individual man, or to grant
this, and prove the falsity of the assertions of Celsus. If you, then,
wholly annihilate providence, you will falsify those assertions of his in
which he grants the existence of "God and a providence," in order that you
may maintain the truth of your own position; but if, on the other hand, you
still admit the existence of providence, because you do not assent to the
dictum of Celsus, that "neither has a God nor the son of a God come down
nor is to come down(3) to mankind," why not rather carefully ascertain from
the statements made regarding Jesus, and the prophecies uttered concerning
Him, who it is that we are to consider as having come down to the human
race as God, and the Son of God?--whether that Jesus who said and
ministered so much, or those who under pretence of oracles and divinations,
do not reform the morals of their worshippers, but who have besides
apostatized from the pure and holy worship and honour due to the Maker of
all things, and who tear away the souls of those who give heed to them from
the one only visible and true God, under a pretence of paying honour to a
multitude of deities?

CHAP. IV.

   But since he says, in the next place, as if the Jews or Christians had
answered regarding those who come down to visit the human race, that they
were angels: "But if ye say that they are angels, what do you call them?"
he continues, "Are they gods, or some other race of beings?" and then again
introduces us as if answering, "Some other race of beings, and probably
demons,"--let us proceed to notice these remarks. For we indeed acknowledge
that angels are "ministering spirits," and we say that "they are sent forth
to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation;"(4) and that they
ascend, bearing the supplications of men, to the purest of the heavenly
places in the universe, or even to supercelestial regions purer still;(5)
and that they come down from these, conveying to each one, according to his
deserts, something enjoined by God to be conferred by them upon those who
are to be the recipients of His benefits. Having thus learned to call these
beings "angels" from their employments, we find that because they are
divine they are sometimes termed "god" in the sacred Scriptures,(6) but not
so that we are commanded to honour and worship in place of God those who
minister to us, and bear to us His blessings. For every prayer, and
supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the
Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels, the
living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make
intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have
the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of
prayer.(7)

CHAP. V.

   For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their
nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason. But,
conformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of them, which is
something wonderful and mysterious, be obtained. Then this knowledge,
making known to us their nature, and the offices to which they are
severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with confidence to any
other than to the Supreme God, who is sufficient for all things, and that
through our Saviour the Son of God, who is the Word, and Wisdom, and Truth,
and everything else which the writings of God's prophets and the apostles
of Jesus entitle Him. And it is enough to secure that the holy angels of
God be propitious to us,(1) and that they do all things on our behalf, that
our disposition of mind towards God should imitate as far as it is within
the power of human nature the example of these holy angels, who again
follow the example of their God; and that the conceptions which we
entertain of His Son, the Word, so far as attainable by us, should not be
opposed to the clearer conceptions of Him which the holy angels possess,
but should daily approach these in clearness and distinctness. But because
Celsus has not read our holy Scriptures, he gives himself an answer as if
it came from us, saying that we "assert that the angels who come down from
heaven to confer benefits on mankind are a different race from the gods,"
and adds that "in all probability they would be called demons by us:" not
observing that the name "demons" is not a term of indifferent meaning like
that of "men," among whom some are good and some bad, nor yet a term of
excellence like that of "the gods," which is applied not to wicked demons,
or to statues, or to animals, but (by those who know divine things) to what
is truly divine and blessed; whereas the term "demons" is always applied to
those wicked powers, freed from the encumbrance of a grosser body, who lead
men astray, and fill them with distractions and drag them down from God and
supercelestial thoughts to things here below.

CHAP. VI.

   He next proceeds to make the following statement about the Jews:--"The
first point relating to the Jews which is fitted to excite wonder, is that
they should worship the heaven and the angels who dwell therein, and yet
pass by and neglect its most venerable and powerful parts, as the sun, the
moon, and the other heavenly bodies, both fixed stars and planets, as if it
were possible that 'the whole' could be God, and yet its parts not divine;
or (as if it were reasonable) to treat with the greatest respect those who
are said to appear to such as are in darkness somewhere, blinded by some
crooked sorcery, or dreaming dreams through the influence of shadowy
spectres,(2) while those who prophesy so clearly and strikingly to all men,
by means of whom rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunder (to which they
offer worship), and lightnings, and fruits, and all kinds of
productiveness, are brought about,--by means of whom God is revealed to
them,--the most prominent heralds among those beings that are above,--those
that are truly heavenly angels,--are to be regarded as of no account!" In
making these statements, Celsus appears to have fallen into confusion, and
to have penned them from false ideas of things which he did not understand;
for it is patent to all who investigate the practices of the Jews, and
compare them with those of the Christians, that the Jews who follow the
law, which, speaking in the person of God, says, "Thou shall have no other
gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee an image, nor a likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the waters under the earth; thou shall not bow down to them, nor
serve them,"(3) worship nothing else than the Supreme God, who made the
heavens, and all things besides. Now it is evident that those who live
according to the law, and worship the Maker of heaven, will not worship the
heaven at the same time with God. Moreover, no one who obeys the law of
Moses will bow down to the angels who are in heaven; and, in like manner,
as they do not bow down to sun, moon, and stars, the host of heaven, they
refrain from doing obeisance to heaven and its angels, obeying the law
which declares: "Lest thou lift up thine eyes to heaven, and when thou
seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven,
shouldst be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God
hath divided unto all nations."(4)

CHAP. VII.

   Having, moreover, assumed that the Jews consider the heaven to be God,
he adds that this is absurd; finding fault with those who bow down to the
heaven, but not also to the sun, and moon, and stars, saying that the Jews
do this, as if it were possible that "the whole" should be God, and its
several parts not divine. And he seems to call the heaven "a whole," and
sun, moon, and stars its several parts. Now, certainly neither Jews nor
Christians call the "heaven" God. Let it be granted, however, that, as he
alleges, the heaven is called God by the Jews, and suppose that sun, moon,
and stars are parts of "heaven,"--which is by no means true, for neither
are the animals and plants upon the earth any portion of it,--how is it
true, even according to the opinions of the Greeks, that if God  be a
whole, His parts also are divine? Certainly  they say that the Cosmos taken
as the whole(5) is God, the Stoics calling it the First God, the followers
of Plato the Second, and some of them the Third. According to these
philosophers, then, seeing the whole Cosmos is God, its parts also are
divine; so that not only are human beings divine, but the whole of the
irrational creation, as being "portions" of the Cosmos; and besides these,
the plants also are divine. And if the rivers, and mountains, and seas are
portions of the Cosmos, then, since the whole Cosmos is God, are the riven
and seas also gods? But even this the Greeks will not assert. Those,
however, who preside over rivers and seas (either demons or gods, as they
call them), they would term gods. Now from this it follows that the general
statement of Celsus, even according to the Greeks, who hold the doctrine of
Providence, is false, that if any "whole" be a god, its parts necessarily
are divine. But it follows from the doctrine of Celsus, that if the Cosmos
be God, all that is in it is divine, being parts of the Cosmos. Now,
according to this view, animals, as flies, and gnats, and worms, and every
species of serpent, as well as of birds and fishes, will be divine,--an
assertion which would not be made even by those who maintain that the
Cosmos is God. But the Jews, who live according to the law of Moses,
although they may not know how to receive the secret meaning of the law,
which is conveyed in obscure language, will not maintain that either the
heaven or the angels are God.

CHAP. VIII.

   As we allege, however, that he has fallen into confusion in consequence
of false notions which he has imbibed, come and let us point them out to
the best of our ability, and show that although Celsus considers it to be a
Jewish custom to bow down to the heaven and the angels in it, such a
practice is not at all Jewish, but is in violation of Judaism, as it also
is to do obeisance to sun, moon, and stars, as well as images. You will
find at least in the book of Jeremiah the words of God censuring by the
mouth of the prophet the Jewish people for doing obeisance to such objects,
and for sacrificing to the queen of heaven, and to all the host of
heaven.(1) The writings of the Christians, moreover, show, in censuring the
sins committed among the Jews, that when God abandoned that people on
account of certain sins, these sins (of idol-worship) also were committed
by them. For it is related in the Acts of the Apostles regarding the Jews,
that "God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is
written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered
to Me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the
wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your
god Remphan, figures which you made to worship them."(2) And in the
writings of Paul, who was carefully trained in Jewish customs, and
converted afterwards to Christianity by a miraculous appearance of Jesus,
the following words may be read in the Epistle to the Colossians: "Let no
man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of
angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed
up by his fleshly mind; and not holding the Head, from which all the body
by joint and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together,
increaseth with the increase of God."(3) But Celsus, having neither read
these verses, nor having learned their contents from any other source, has
represented, I know not how, the Jews as not transgressing their law in
bowing down to the heavens, and to the angels therein.

CHAP. IX.

   And still continuing a little confused, and not taking care to see what
was relevant to the matter, he expressed his opinion that the Jews were
induced by the incantations employed in jugglery and sorcery (in
consequence of which certain phantoms appear, in obedience to the spells
employed by the magicians) to bow down to the angels in heaven, not
observing that this was contrary to their law, which said to them who
practised such observances: "Regard not them which have familiar
spirits,(4) neither seek after wizards,(5) to be defiled by them: I am the
LORD your God."(6) He ought, therefore, either not to have at all
attributed this practice to the Jews, seeing he has observed that they keep
their law, and has called them "those who live according to their law;" or
if he did attribute it, he ought to have shown that the Jews did this in
violation of their code. But again, as they transgress their law who offer
worship to those who are said to appear to them who are involved in
darkness and blinded by sorcery, and who dream dreams, owing to obscure
phantoms presenting themselves; so also do they transgress the law who
offer sacrifice to sun, moon, and stars.(7) And there is thus great
inconsistency in the same individual saying that the Jews are careful to
keep their law by not bowing down to sun, and moon, and stars, while they
are not so careful to keep it in the matter of heaven and the angels.

CHAP. X.

   And if it be necessary for us to offer a defence of our refusal to
recognise as gods, equally with angels, and sun, and moon, and stars, those
who are called by the Greeks "manifest and visible" divinities, we shall
answer that the law of Moses knows that these latter have been apportioned
by God among all the nations under the heaven, but not amongst those who
were selected by God as His chosen people above all the nations of the
earth. For it is written in the book of Deuteronomy: "And lest thou lift up
thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the
stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them, and
serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations unto the
whole heaven. But the LORD hath taken us, and brought as forth out of the
iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto Him a people of inheritance, as
ye are this day."(1) The Hebrew people, then, being called by God a "chosen
generation, and a royal priesthood, and a holy nation, and a purchased
people,"(2) regarding whom it was foretold to Abraham by the voice of the
Lord addressed to him, "Look now towards heaven, and tell the stars, if
thou be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed
be;"(3) and having thus a hope that they would become as the stars of
heaven, were not likely to bow down to those objects which they were to
resemble as a result of their understanding and observing the law of God.
For it was said to them: "The LORD our God hath multiplied us; and, behold,
ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude."(4) In the book of
Daniel, also, the following prophecies are found relating to those who are
to share in the resurrection: "And at that time thy people shall be
delivered, every one that has been written in the book. And many of them
that sleep in the dust(5) of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise
shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and (those) of the many
righteous(6) as the stars for ever and ever,"(7) etc. And hence Paul, too,
when speaking of the resurrection, says: "And there are also celestial
bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and
the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and
another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star
differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the
dead."(8) It was not therefore consonant to reason that those who had been
taught sublimely(9) to ascend above all created things, and to hope for the
enjoyment of the most glorious rewards with God on account of their
virtuous lives, and who had heard the words, "Ye are the light of I the
world,"(10) and, "Let your light so shine before men, that they, seeing
your good works, may glorify your Father who is in heaven,"(11) and who
possessed through practice this brilliant and unfading wisdom, or who had
secured even the "very reflection of everlasting light,"(12) should be so
impressed with the (mere) visible light of sun, and moon, and stars, that,
on account of that sensible light of theirs, they should deem themselves
(although possessed of so great a rational light of knowledge, and of the
true light, and the light of the world, and the light of men) to be somehow
inferior to them, and to bow down to them; seeing they ought to be
worshipped, if they are to receive worship at all, not for the sake of the
sensible light which is admired by the multitude, but because of the
rational and true light, if indeed the stars in heaven are rational and
virtuous beings, and have been illuminated with the light of knowledge by
that wisdom which is the "reflection of everlasting light." For that
sensible light of theirs is the work of the Creator of all things, while
that rational light is derived perhaps from the principle of free-will
within them. (13)

CHAP. XI.

   But even this rational light itself ought not to be worshipped by him
who beholds and understands the true light, by sharing in which these  also
are enlightened; nor by him who beholds God, the Father of the true light,-
-of whom it has been said, "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness
at all."(14) Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon, and stars because their
light is visible and celestial, would not bow down to a spark of fire or a
lamp upon earth, because they see the incomparable superiority of those
objects which are deemed worthy of homage to the light of sparks and lamps.
So those who understand that God is light, and who have apprehended that
the Son of God is "the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into
the world," and who comprehend also how He says, "I am the light of the
world," would not rationally offer worship to that which is, as it were, a
spark in sun, moon, and stars, in comparison with God, who is light of the
true light. Nor is it with a view to depreciate these great works of God's
creative power, or to call them, after the fashion of Anaxagoras, "fiery
masses,"(15) that we thus speak of sun, and moon, and stars; but because we
perceive the inexpressible superiority of the divinity of God, and that of
His only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other things. And being
persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God
through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings
who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would
prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray,
rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of
prayer(1) between God and them.(2) And here I may employ this illustration,
as beating upon this point: Our Lord and Saviour, heating Himself on one
occasion addressed as "Good Master,"(3) referring him who used it to His
own Father, said, "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one,
that is, God the Father."(4) And since it was in accordance with sound
reason that this should be said by the Son of His Father's love, as being
the image of the goodness of God, why should not the sun say with greater
reason to those that bow down to him, Why do you worship me? "for thou wilt
worship the LORD thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve;"(5) for it is He
whom I and all who are with me serve and worship. And although one may not
be so exalted (as the sun), nevertheless let such an one pray to the Word
of God (who is able to heal him), and still more to His Father, who also to
the righteous of former times "sent His word, and healed them, and
delivered them from their destructions."(6)

CHAP. XII.

   God accordingly, in His kindness, condescends to mankind, not in any
local sense, but through His providence;(7) while the Son of God, not only
(when on earth), but at all times, is with His own disciples, fulfilling
the promise, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world."(8)
And if a branch cannot bear fruit except it abide in the vine, it is
evident that the disciples also of the Word, who are the rational branches
of the Word's true vine, cannot produce the fruits of virtue unless they
abide in the true vine, the Christ of God, who is with us locally here
below upon the earth, and who is with those who cleave to Him in all parts
of the world, and is also in all places with those who do not know Him.
Another is made manifest by that John who wrote the Gospel, when, speaking
in the person of John the Baptist, he said, "There standeth one among you
whom ye know not; He it is who cometh after me."(9) And it is absurd, when
He who fills heaven and earth, and who said, "Do I not fill heaven and
earth? saith the LORD,"(10) is with us, and near us (for I believe Him when
He says, "I am a God nigh at hand, and not afar off, saith the LORD"(11) to
seek to pray to sun or moon, or one of the stars, whose influence does not
reach the whole of the world.(12) But, to use the very words of Celsus, let
it be granted that "the sun, moon, and stars do foretell rain, and heat,
and clouds, and thunders," why, then, if they really do foretell such great
things, ought we not rather to do homage to God, whose servant they are in
uttering these predictions, and show reverence to Him rather than His
prophets? Let them predict, then, the approach of lightnings, and fruits,
and all manner of productions, and let all such things be under their
administration; yet we shall not on that account worship those who
themselves offer worship, as we do not worship even Moses, and those
prophets who came from God after him, and who predicted better things  than
rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunders, and lightnings, and fruits, and
all sorts of productions visible to the senses. Nay, even if sun, and moon,
and stars were able to prophesy better things than rain, not even then
shall we worship them, but the Father of the prophecies which are in them,
and the Word of God, their minister. But grant that they are His heralds,
and truly messengers of heaven, why, even then ought we not to worship the
God whom they only proclaim and announce, rather than those who are the
heralds and messengers?

CHAP. XIII.

   Celsus, moreover, assumes that sun, and moon, and stars are regarded by
us as of no account. Now, with regard to these, we acknowledge that they
too are "waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God," being for the
present subjected to the "vanity" of their material bodies, "by reason of
Him who has subjected the same in hope."(13) But if Celsus had read the
innumerable other passages where we speak of sun, moon, and stars, and
especially these,--"Praise Him, all ye stars, and thou, O light," and,
"Praise Him, ye heaven of heavens,"(14)--he would not have said of us that
we regard such mighty beings, which "greatly praise" the Lord God, as of no
account. Nor did Celsus know the passage: "For the earnest expectation of
the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the
creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him
who hath subjected the same in hope; because the creature itself also shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of
the children of God."(1) And with these words let us terminate our defence
against the charge of not worshipping sun, moon, and stars. And let us now
bring forward those statements of his which follow, that we may, God
willing, address to him in reply such arguments as shall be suggested by
the light of truth.

CHAP. XIV.

   The following, then, are his words: "It is folly on their part to
suppose that when God, as if He were a cook,(2) introduces the fire (which
is to consume the world), all the rest of the human race will be burnt up,
while they alone will remain, not only such of them as are then alive, but
also those who are long since dead, which latter will arise from the earth
clothed with the self-same flesh (as during life); for such a hope is
simply one which might be cherished by worms. For what sort of human soul
is that which would still long for a body that had been subject to
corruption? Whence, also, this opinion of yours is not shared by some of
the Christians, and they pronounce it to be exceedingly vile, and
loathsome, and impossible; for what kind of body is that which, after being
completely corrupted, can return to its original nature, and to that self-
same first condition out of which it fell into dissolution? Being unable to
return any answer, they betake themselves to a most absurd refuge, viz.,
that all things are possible to God. And yet God cannot do things that are
disgraceful, nor does He wish to do things that are contrary to His nature;
nor, if (in accordance with the wickedness of your own heart) you desired
anything that was evil, would God accomplish it; nor must you believe at
once that it will be done. For God does not rule the world in order to
satisfy inordinate desires, or to allow disorder and confusion, but to
govern a nature that is upright and just.(3) For the soul, indeed, He might
be able to provide an everlasting life; while dead bodies, on the contrary,
are, as Heraclitus observes, more worthless than dung. God, however,
neither can nor will declare, contrary to all reason, that the flesh, which
is full of those things which it is not even honourable to mention, is to
exist for ever. For He is the reason of all things that exist, and
therefore can do nothing either contrary to reason or contrary to Himself."

CHAP. XV.

   Observe, now, here at the very beginning, how, in ridiculing the
doctrine of a conflagration of the world, held by certain of the Greeks who
have treated the subject in a philosophic spirit not to be depreciated, he
would make us, "representing God, as it were, as a cook, hold the belief in
a general conflagration;" not perceiving that, as certain Greeks were of
opinion (perhaps having received their information from the ancient nation
of the Hebrews), it is a purificatory fire which is brought upon the world,
and probably also on each one of those who stand in need of chastisement by
the fire and healing at the same time, seeing it burns indeed, but does not
consume, those who are without a material body,(4) which needs to be
consumed by that fire, and which burns and consumes those who by their
actions, words, and thoughts have built up wood, or hay, or stubble, in
that which is figuratively termed a "building."(5) And the holy Scriptures
say that the Lord will, like a refiner's fire and fullers' soap,(6) visit
each one of those who require purification, because of the intermingling in
them of a flood of wicked matter proceeding from their evil nature; who
need fire, I mean, to refine, as it were, (the dross of) those who are
intermingled with copper, and tin, and lead. And he who likes may learn
this from the prophet Ezekiel.(7) But that we say that God brings fire upon
the world, not like a cook, but like a God, who is the benefactor of them
who stand in need of the discipline of fire,(8) will be testified by the
prophet Isaiah, in whose writings it is related that a sinful nation was
thus addressed: "Because thou hast coals of fire, sit upon them: they shall
be to thee a help."(9) Now the Scripture is appropriately adapted to the
multitudes of those who are to peruse it, because it speaks obscurely of
things that are sad and gloomy,(10) in order to terrify those who cannot by
any other means be saved from the flood of their sins, although even then
the attentive reader will dearly discover the end that is to be
accomplished by these sad and painful punishments upon those who endure
them. It is sufficient, however, for the present to quote the words of
Isaiah: "For My name's sake will I show Mine anger, and My glory I will
bring upon thee, that I may not destroy thee."(11) We have thus been under
the necessity of referring in obscure terms to questions not fitted to the
capacity of simple believers,(12) who require a simpler instruction in
words, that we might not appear to leave unrefuted the accusation of
Celsus, that "God introduces the fire (which is to destroy the world), as
if He were a cook."

CHAP. XVI.

   From what has been said, it will be manifest to intelligent hearers how
we have to answer the following: "All the rest of the race will be
completely burnt up, and they alone will remain." It is not to be wondered
at, indeed, if such thoughts have been entertained by those amongst us who
are called in Scripture the "foolish things" of the world, and "base
things," and "things which are despised," and "things which are not,"
because "by the foolishness of preaching it pleased God to save them that
believe on Him, after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew
not God,"(1)--because such individuals are unable to see distinctly the
sense of each particular passage,(2) or unwilling to devote the necessary
leisure to the investigation of Scripture, notwithstanding the injunction
of Jesus, "Search the Scriptures."(3) The following, moreover, are his
ideas regarding the fire which is to be brought upon the world by God, and
the punishments which are to befall sinners. And perhaps, as it is
appropriate to Children that some things should be addressed to them in a
manner befitting their infantile condition, to convert them, as being of
very tender age, to a better course of life; so, to those whom the word
terms "the foolish things of the world," and "the base," and "the
despised," the just and obvious meaning of the passages relating to
punishments is suitable, inasmuch as they cannot receive any other mode of
conversion than that which is by fear and the presentation of punishment,
and thus be saved from the many evils (which would befall them).(4) The
Scripture accordingly declares that only those who are unscathed by the
fire and the punishments are to remain,--those, viz., whose opinions, and
morals, and mind have been purified to the highest degree; while, on the
other hand, those of a different nature--those, viz., who, according to
their deserts, require the administration of punishment by fire--will be
involved in these sufferings with a view to an end which it is suitable for
God to bring upon those who have been created in His image, but who have
lived in opposition to the will of that nature which is according to His
image. And this is our answer to the statement, "All the rest of the race
will be completely burnt up, but they alone are to remain."

CHAP. XVII.

   Then, in the next place, having either himself misunderstood the sacred
Scriptures, or those (interpreters) by whom they were not understood, he
proceeds to assert that "it is said by us that there will remain at the
time of the visitation which is to come upon the world by the fire of
purification, not only those who are then alive, but also those who are
long ago dead;" not observing that it is with a secret kind of wisdom that
it was said by the apostle of Jesus: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall
all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump;
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,
and we shall be changed."(5) Now he ought to have noticed what was the
meaning of him who uttered these words, as being one who was by no means
dead, who made a distinction between himself and those like him and the
dead, and who said afterwards, "The dead shall be raised incorruptible,"
and "we shall be changed." And as a proof that such was the apostle's
meaning in writing those words which I have quoted from the first Epistle
to the Corinthians, I will quote also from the first to the Thessalonians,
in which Paul, as one who is alive and awake, and different from those who
are asleep, speaks as follows: "For this we say unto you by the word of the
Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall
not prevent them who are asleep; for the Lord Himself shall descend from
heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of
God."(6)  Then, again, after this, knowing that there were others dead in
Christ besides himself and such as he, he subjoins the words, "The dead in
Christ shall rise first; then we who are alive and remain shall be caught
up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air."(7)

CHAP. XVIII.

   But since he has ridiculed at great length the doctrine of the
resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the Churches, and
which is more clearly understood by the more intelligent believer; and as
it is unnecessary again to quote his words, which have been already
adduced, let us, with regard to the problem(8) (as in an apologetic work
directed against an alien from the faith, and for the sake of those who are
still "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie
in wait to deceive"(1)), state and establish to the best of our ability a
few points expressly intended for our readers. Neither we, then, nor the
holy Scriptures, assert that with the same bodies, without a change to a
higher condition, "shall those who were long dead arise from the earth and
live again;" for in so speaking, Celsus makes a false charge against us.
For we may listen to many passages of Scripture treating of the
resurrection in a manner worthy of God, although it may, suffice for the
present to quote the language of Paul from the first Epistle to the
Corinthians, where he says: "But some man will say, How are the dead raised
up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is
not quickened, except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not
that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some
other grain; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every
seed his own body."(2) Now, observe how in these words he says that there
is sown, "not that body that shall be;" but that of the body which is sown
and cast naked into the earth (God giving to each seed its own body), there
takes place as it were a resurrection: from the seed that was east into the
ground there arising a stalk, e.g., among such plants as the following,
viz., the mustard plant, or of a larger tree, as in the olive,(3) or one of
the fruit-trees.

CHAP. XIX.

   God, then, gives to each thing its own body as He pleases: as in the
case of plants that are  sown, so also in the case of those beings who are,
as it were, sown in dying, and who in due time receive, out of what has
been "sown," the body assigned by God to each one according to his deserts.
And we may hear, moreover, the Scripture teaching us at great length the
difference between that which is, as it were, "sown," and that which is, as
it were, "raised" from it in these words: "It is sown in corruption, it is
raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it
is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it
is raised a spiritual body."(4) And let him who has the capacity understand
the meaning of the words: "As is the earthy, such are they also that are
earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And
as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of
the heavenly."(5) And although the apostle wished to conceal the secret
meaning of the passage, which was not adapted to the simpler class of
believers, and to the understanding of the common people, who are led by
their faith to enter on a better course of life, he was nevertheless
obliged afterwards to say (in order that we might not misapprehend his
meaning), after "Let us bear the image of the heavenly," these words also:
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."(6) Then, knowing
that there was a secret and mystical meaning in the passage, as was
becoming in one who was leaving, in his Epistles, to those who were to come
after him words full of significance, he subjoins the following, "Behold, I
show you a mystery;"(7) which is his usual style in introducing matters of
a profounder and more mystical nature, and such as are fittingly concealed
from the multitude, as is written in the book of Tobit: "It is good to keep
close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,"(8)-
-in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the
advantage of the multitude. Our hope, then, is not" the hope of worms, nor
does our soul long for a body that has seen corruption;" for although it
may require a body, for the sake of moving from place to place,(9) yet it
understands--as having meditated on the wisdom (that is from above),
agreeably to the declaration, "The mouth of the righteous will speak
wisdom"(10)--the difference between the "earthly house," in which is the
tabernacle of the building that is to be dissolved, and that in which the
righteous do groan, being burdened,--not wishing to "put off" the
tabernacle, but to be "clothed therewith," that by being clothed upon,
mortality might be swallowed up of life. For, in virtue of the whole nature
of the body being corruptible, the corruptible tabernacle must put on
incorruption; and its other part, being mortal, and becoming liable to the
death which follows sin, must put on immortality, in order that, when the
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal immortality,
then shall come to pass what was predicted of old by the prophets,--the
annihilation of the "victory" of death (because it had conquered and
subjected us to his sway), and of its "sting," with which it stings the
imperfectly defended soul, and inflicts upon it the wounds which result
from sin.

CHAP. XX.

   But since our views regarding the resurrection have, as far as time
would permit, been stated in part on the present occasion (for we have
systematically examined the subject in greater detail in other parts of our
writings); and as now we must by means of sound reasoning refute the
fallacies of Celsus, who neither understands the meaning of our Scripture,
nor has the capacity of judging that the meaning of our wise men is not to
be determined by those individuals who make no profession of anything more
than of a (simple) faith in the Christian system, let us show that men, not
to be lightly esteemed on account of their reasoning powers and dialectic
subtleties, have given expression to very absurd(1) opinions. And if we
must sneer(2) at them as contemptible old wives' fables, it is at them
rather than at our narrative that we must sneer. The disciples of the Porch
assert, that after a period of years there will be a conflagration of the
world, and after that an arrangement of things in which everything will be
unchanged, as compared with the former arrangement of the world. Those of
them, however, who evinced their respect for this doctrine have said that
there will be a change, although exceedingly slight, at the end of the
cycle, from what prevailed during the preceding.(3) And these men maintain,
that in the succeeding cycle the same things will occur, and Socrates will
be again the son of Sophroniscus, and a native of Athens; and Phaenarete,
being married to Sophroniscus, will again become his mother. And although
they do not mention the word "resurrection," they show in reality that
Socrates, who derived his origin from seed, will spring from that of
Sophroniscus, and will be fashioned in the womb of Phaenarete; and being
brought up at Athens, will practise the study of philosophy, as if his
former philosophy had arisen again, and were to be in no respect different
from what it was before. Anytus and Melitus, too, will arise again as
accusers of Socrates, and the Council of Areopagus will condemn him to
death! But what is more ridiculous still, is that Socrates will clothe
himself with garments not at all different from those which he wore during
the former cycle, and will live in the same unchanged state of poverty, and
in the same unchanged city of Athens! And Phalaris will again play the
tyrant, and his brazen bull will pour forth its bellowings from the voices
of victims within, unchanged from those who were condemned in the former
cycle! And Alexander of Pherae, too, will again act the tyrant with a
cruelty unaltered from the former time, and will condemn to death the same
"unchanged" individuals as before. But what need is there to go into detail
upon the doctrine held by the Stoic philosophers on such things, and which
escapes the ridicule of Celsus, and is perhaps even venerated by him, since
he regards Zeno as a wiser man than Jesus?

CHAP. XXI.

   The disciples of Pythagoras, too, and of Plato, although they appear to
hold the incorruptibility of the world, yet fall into similar errors. For
as the planets, after certain definite cycles, assume the same positions,
and hold the same relations to one another, all things on earth will, they
assert, be like what they were at the time when the same state of planetary
relations existed in the world. From this view it necessarily follows, that
when, after the lapse of a lengthened cycle, the planets come to occupy
towards each other the same relations which they occupied in the time of
Socrates, Socrates will again be born of the same parents, and suffer the
same treatment, being accused by Anytus and Melitus, and condemned by the
Council of Areopagus! The learned among the Egyptians, moreover, hold
similar views, and yet they are treated with respect, and do not incur the
ridicule of Celsus and such as he; while we, who maintain that all things
are administered by God in proportion to the relation of the free-will of
each individual, and are ever being brought into a better condition, so far
as they admit of being so,(4) and who know that the nature of our free-will
admits of the occurrence of contingent events(5) (for it is incapable of
receiving the wholly unchangeable character of God), yet do not appear to
say anything worthy of a testing examination.

CHAP. XXII.

   Let no one, however, suspect that, in speaking as we do, we belong to
those who are indeed called Christians, but who set aside the doctrine of
the resurrection as it is taught in Scripture. For these persons cannot, so
far as their principles apply, at all establish that the stalk or tree
which springs up comes from the grain of wheat, or anything else (which was
cast into the ground); whereas we, who believe that that which is "sown" is
not "quickened" unless it die, and that there is sown not that body that
shall be (for God gives it a body as it pleases Him, raising it in
incorruption after it is sown in corruption; and after it is sown in
dishonour, raising it in glory; and after it is sown in weakness, raising
it in power; and after it is sown a natural body, raising it a spiritual),-
-we preserve both the doctrine(6) of the Church of Christ and the grandeur
of the divine promise, proving also the possibility of its accomplishment
not by mere assertion, but by arguments; knowing that although heaven and
earth, and the things that are in them, may pass away, yet His words
regarding each individual thing, being, as parts of a whole, or species of
a genus, the utterances of Him who was God the Word, who was in the
beginning with God, shall by no means pass away. For we desire to listen to
Him who said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not
pass away."(1)

CHAP. XXIII.

   We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone
corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the gain of wheat
which has decayed returns to its former condition. But we do maintain, that
as above  the gain of wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain power(2) is
implanted in the body, which is not destroyed, and from which the body is
raised up in incorruption. The philosophers of the Porch, however, in
consequence of the opinions which they hold regarding the unchangeableness
of things after a certain cycle, assert that the body, after undergoing
complete corruption, will return to its original condition, and will again
assume that first nature from which it passed into a state of dissolution,
establishing these points, as they think, by irresistible arguments.(3) We,
however, do not betake ourselves to a most absurd refuge, saying that with
God all things are possible; for we know how to understand this word "all"
as not referring either to things  that are "non-existent" or that are
inconceivable. But we maintain, at the same time, that God cannot do what
is disgraceful, since then He would be capable of ceasing to be God; for if
He do anything that is disgraceful, He is not God. Since, however, he lays
it down as a principle, that "God does not desire what is contrary to
nature," we have to make a distinction, and say that if any one asserts
that wickedness is contrary to nature, while we maintain that "God does not
desire what is contrary to nature,"--either what springs from wickedness or
from an irrational principle,--yet, if such things happen according to the
word and will of God, we must at once necessarily hold that they are not
contrary to nature. Therefore things which are done by God, although they
may be, or may appear to some to be incredible, are not contrary to nature.
And if we must press the force of words,(4) we would say that, in
comparison with what is generally understood as "nature," there are certain
things which are beyond its power, which God could at any time do; as,
e.g., in raising man above the level of human nature, and causing him to
pass into a better and more divine condition, and preserving him in the
same, so long as he who is the object of His care shows by his actions that
he desires (the continuance of His help).

CHAP. XXIV.

   Moreover, as we have already said that for God to desire anything
unbecoming Himself would be destructive of His existence as Deity, we will
add that if man, agreeably to the wickedness of his nature, should desire
anything that is abominable,(5) God cannot grant it. And now it is from no
spirit of contention that we answer the assertions of Celsus; but it is in
the spirit of truth that we investigate them, as assenting to his view that
"He is the God, not of inordinate desires, nor of error and disorder, but
of a nature just and upright," because He is the source of all that is
good. And that He is able to provide an eternal life for the soul we
acknowledge; and that He possesses not only the "power," but the "will." In
view, therefore, of these considerations, we are not at all distressed by
the assertion of Heraclitus, adopted by Celsus, that "dead bodies are to be
cast out as more worthless than dung;" and yet, with reference even to
this, one might say that dung, indeed, ought to be cast out, while the dead
bodies of men, on account of the soul by which they were inhabited,
especially if it had been virtuous, ought not to be cast out. For, in
harmony with those laws which are based upon the principles of equity,
bodies are deemed worthy of sepulture, with the honours accorded on such
occasions, that no insult, so far as can be helped, may be offered to the
soul which dwelt within, by casting forth the body (after the soul has
departed) like that of the animals. Let it not then be held, contrary to
reason, that it is the will of God to declare that the grain of wheat is
not immortal, but the stalk which springs from it, while the body which is
sown in corruption is not, but that which is raised by Him in incorruption.
But according to Celsus, God Himself is the reason of all things, while
according to our view it is His Son, of whom we say in philosophic
language, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God;"(6) while in our judgment also, God cannot do anything
which is contrary to reason, or contrary to Himself.(7)

CHAP. XXV.

   Let us next notice the statements of Celsus, which follow the
preceding, and which are as follow: "As the Jews, then, became a peculiar
people, and enacted laws in keeping with the customs of their country,(1)
and maintain them up to the present time, and observe a mode of worship
which, whatever be its nature, is yet derived from their fathers, they act
in these respects like other men, because each nation retains its ancestral
customs, whatever they are, if they happen to be established among them.
And such an arrangement appears to be advantageous, not only because it has
occurred to the mind of other nations to decide some things differently,
but also because it is a duty to protect what has been established for the
public advantage; and also because, in all probability, the various
quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different
superintending spirits,(2) and were thus distributed among certain
governing powers,(3) and in this manner the administration of the world is
carried on. And whatever is done among each nation in this way would be
rightly done, wherever it was agreeable to the wishes (of the
superintending powers), while it would be an act of impiety to get rid
of(4) the institutions established from the beginning in the various
places." By these words Celsus shows that the Jews, who were formerly
Egyptians, subsequently became a "peculiar people," and enacted laws which
they carefully preserve. And not to repeat his statements, which have been
already before us, he says that it is advantageous to the Jews to observe
their ancestral worship, as other nations carefully attend to theirs. And
he further states a deeper reason why it is of advantage to the Jews to
cultivate their ancestral customs, in hinting dimly that those to whom was
allotted the office of superintending the country which was being
legislated for, enacted the laws of each land in co-operation with its
legislators. He appears, then, to indicate that both the country of the
Jews, and the nation which inhabits it, are superintended by one or more
beings, who, whether they were one or more, co-operated with Moses, and
enacted the laws of the Jews.

CHAP. XXVI.

   "We must," he says, "observe the laws, not only because it has occurred
to the mind of others to decide some things differently, but because it is
a duty to protect what has been enacted for the public advantage, and aim
because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from
the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and were
distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the
administration of the world is carried on." Thus Celsus, as if he had
forgotten what he had said against the Jews, now includes them in the
general eulogy which he passes upon all who observe their ancestral
customs, remarking: "And whatever is done among each nation in this way,
would be rightly done whenever agreeable to the wishes (of the
superintendents) ." And observe here, whether he does not openly, so far as
he can, express a wish that the Jew should live in the observance of his
own laws, and not depart from them, because he would commit an act of
impiety if he apostatized; for his words are: "It would be an act of
impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in
the various places." Now I should like to ask him, and those who entertain
his views, who it was that distributed the various quarters of the earth
from the beginning among the different superintending spirits; and
especially, who gave the country of the Jews, and the Jewish people
themselves, to the one or more superintendents to whom it was allotted? Was
it, as Celsus would say, Jupiter who assigned the Jewish people and their
country to a certain spirit or spirits? And was it his wish, to whom they
were thus assigned, to enact among them the laws which prevail, or was it
against his will that it was done? You will observe that, whatever be his
answer, he is in a strait. But if the various quarters of the earth were
not allotted by some one being to the various superintending spirits, then
each one at random, and without the superintendence of a higher power,
divided the earth according to chance; and yet such a view is absurd, and
destructive in no small degree of the providence of the God who presides
over all things.

CHAP. XXVII.

   Any one, indeed, who chooses, may relate how the various quarters of
the earth, being distributed among certain governing powers, are
administered by those who superintend them; but let him tell us also how
what is done among each nation is done rightly when agreeable to the wishes
of the superintendents. Let him, for example, tell us whether the laws of
the Scythians, which permit the murder of parents, are right laws; or those
of the Persians, which do not forbid the marriages of sons with their
mothers, or of daughters with their own fathers. But what need is there for
me to make selections from those who have been engaged in the business of
enacting laws among the different nations, and to inquire how the laws are
rightly enacted among each, according as they please the superintending
powers? Let Celsus, however, tell us how it would be an act of impiety to
get rid of those ancestral laws which permit the marriages of mothers and
daughters; or which pronounce a man happy who puts an end to his life by
hanging, or declare that they undergo entire purification who deliver
themselves over to the fire, and who terminate their existence by fire; and
how it is an act of impiety to do away with those laws which, for example,
prevail in the Tauric Chersonese, regarding the offering up of strangers in
sacrifice to Diana, or among certain of the Libyan tribes regarding the
sacrifice of children to Saturn. Moreover, this inference follows from the
dictum of Celsus, that it is an act of impiety on the part of the Jews to
do away with those ancestral laws which forbid the worship of any other
deity than the Creator of all things. And it will follow, according to his
view, that piety is not divine by its own nature, but by a certain
(external) arrangement and appointment. For it is an act of piety among
certain tribes to worship a crocodile, and to eat what is an object of
adoration among other tribes; while, again, with others it is a pious act
to worship a calf, and among others, again, to regard the goat as a god.
And, in this way, the same individual will be regarded as acting piously
according to one set of laws, and impiously according to another; and this
is the most absurd result that can be conceived!

CHAP. XXVIII.

   It is probable, however, that to such remarks as the above, the answer
returned would be, that he was pious who kept the laws of his own country,
and not at all chargeable with impiety for the non-observance of those of
other lands; and that, again, he who was deemed guilty of impiety among
certain nations was not really so, when he worshipped his own gods,
agreeably to his country's laws, although he made war against, and even
feasted on,(1) those who were regarded as divinities among those nations
which possessed laws of an opposite kind. Now, observe here whether these
statements do not exhibit the greatest confusion of mind regarding the
nature of what is just, and holy, and religious; since there is no accurate
definition laid down of these things, nor are they described as having a
peculiar character of their own, and stamping as religious those who act
according to their injunctions. If, then, religion, and piety, and
righteousness belong to those things which are so only by comparison, so
that the same act may be both pious and impious, according to different
relations and different laws, see whether it will not follow that
temperance(2) also is a thing of comparison, and courage as well, and
prudence, and the other virtues, than which nothing could be more absurd!
What we have said, however, is sufficient for the more general and simple
class of answers to the allegations of Celsus. But as we think it likely
that some of those who are accustomed to deeper investigation will fall in
with this treatise, let us venture to lay down some considerations of a
profounder kind, conveying a mystical and secret view respecting the
original distribution of the various quarters of the earth among different
superintending spirits; and let us prove to the best of our ability, that
our doctrine is free from the absurd consequences enumerated above.

CHAP. XXIX.

   It appears to me, indeed, that Celsus has misunderstood some of the
deeper reasons relating to the arrangement of terrestrial affairs, some of
which are touched upon(3) even in Grecian history, when certain of those
who are considered to be gods are introduced as having contended with each
other about the possession of Attica; while in the writings of the Greek
poets also, some who are called gods are represented as acknowledging that
certain places here are preferred by them(4) before others. The history of
barbarian nations, moreover, and especially that of Egypt, contains some
such allusions to the division of the so-called Egyptian homes, when it
states that Athena, who obtained Sais by lot, is the same who also has
possession of Attica. And the learned among the Egyptians can enumerate
innumerable instances of this kind, although I do not know whether they
include the Jews and their country in this division. And now, so far as
testimonies outside the word of God bearing on this point are concerned,
enough have been adduced for the present. We say, moreover, that our
prophet of God and His genuine servant Moses, in his song in the book of
Deuteronomy, makes a statement regarding the portioning out of the earth in
the following terms: "When the Most High divided the nations, when He
dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to
the number of the angels of God; and the Lord's portion was His people
Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance."(5) And regarding the
distribution of the nations, the same Moses, in his work entitled Genesis,
thus expresses himself in the style of a historical narrative: "And the
whole earth was of one language and of one speech; and it came to pass, as
they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of
Shinar, and they dwelt there."(6) A little further on he continues: "And
the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men
had built. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all
one language; and this they have begun to do: and now nothing will be
restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let Us go down,
and there confound their language, that they may not understand one
another's speech. And the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the
face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and the tower.
Therefore is the name of it called Confusion;(1) because the LORD did there
confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD
scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."(2) In the treatise of
Solomon, moreover, on "Wisdom," and on the events at the time of the
confusion of languages, when the division of the earth took place, we find
the following regarding Wisdom: "Moreover, the nations in their wicked
conspiracy being confounded, she found out the righteous, and preserved him
blameless unto God, and kept him strong in his tender compassion towards
his son."(3) But on these subjects much, and that of a mystical kind, might
be said; in keeping with which is the following: "It is good to keep close
the secret of a king,"(4)--in order that the doctrine of the entrance of
souls into bodies (not, however, that of the transmigration from one body
into another) may not be thrown before the common understanding, nor what
is holy given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine. For such a
procedure would be impious, being equivalent to a betrayal of the
mysterious declarations of God's wisdom. of which it has been well said:
"Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in a body subject
to sin."(5) It is sufficient, however, to represent in the style of a
historic narrative what is intended to convey a secret meaning in the garb
of history, that those who have the capacity may work out for themselves
all that relates to the subject. (The narrative, then, may be understood as
follows.)

CHAP. XXX.

   All the people upon the earth are to be regarded as having used one
divine language, and so long as they lived harmoniously together were
preserved in the use of this divine language, and they remained without
moving from the east so long as they were imbued with the sentiments of the
"light," and of the "reflection" of the eternal light.(6) But when they
departed from the east, and began to entertain sentiments alien to those of
the east,(7) they found a place in the land of Shinar (which, when
interpreted, means "gnashing of teeth," by way of indicating symbolically
that they had lost the means of their support), and in it they took up
their abode. Then, desiring to gather together material things,(8) and to
join to heaven what had no natural affinity for it, that by means of
material things they might conspire against such as were immaterial, they
said, "Come, let us made bricks, and burn them with fire." Accordingly,
when they had hardened and compacted these materials of clay and matter,
and had shown their desire to make brick into stone, and clay into bitumen,
and by these means to build a city and a tower, the head of which was, at
least in their conception, to reach up to the heavens, after the manner of
the "high things which exalt themselves against the I knowledge of God,"
each one was handed over (in proportion to the greater or less departure
from the east which had taken place among them, and in proportion to the
extent in which bricks had been converted into stones, and clay into
bitumen, and building carried on out of these materials) to angels of
character more or less severe, and of a nature more or less stern, until
they had paid the penalty of their daring deeds; and they were conducted by
those angels, who imprinted on each his native language, to the different
parts of the earth according to their deserts: some, for example, to a
region of burning heat, others to a country which chastises its inhabitants
by its cold; others, again, to a land exceedingly difficult of cultivation,
others to one less so in degree; while a fifth were brought into a land
filled with wild beasts, and a sixth to a country comparatively free of
these.

CHAP. XXXI.

   Now, in the next place, if any one has the capacity, let him understand
that in what assumes the form of history, and which contains some things
that are literally true, while yet it conveys a deeper meaning, those who
preserved their original language continued, by reason of their not having
migrated from the east, in possession of the east, and of their eastern
language. And let him notice, that these alone became the portion of the
Lord, and His people who were called Jacob, and Israel the cord of His
inheritance; and these alone were governed by a ruler who did not receive
those who were placed under him for the purpose of punishment, as was the
case with the others. Let him also, who has the capacity to perceive as far
as mortals may, observe that in the body politic(9) of those who were
assigned to the Lord as His pre-eminent portion, sins were committed, first
of all, such as might be forgiven, and of such a nature as not to make the
sinner worthy of entire desertion while subsequently they became more
numerous though still of a nature to be pardoned. And while remarking that
this state of matters continued for a considerable time, and that a remedy
was always applied, and that after certain intervals these persons returned
to their duty, let him notice that they were given over, in proportion to
their transgressions, to those to whom had been assigned the other quarters
of the earth; and that, after being at first slightly punished, and having
made atonement,(1) they returned, as if they had undergone discipline,(2)
to their proper habitations. Let him notice also that afterwards they were
delivered over to rulers of a severer character--to Assyrians and
Babylonians, as the Scriptures would call them. In the next place,
notwithstanding that means of healing were being applied, let him observe
that they were still multiplying their transgressions, and that they were
on that account dispersed into other regions by the rulers of the nations
that oppressed them. And their own ruler intentionally overlooked their
oppression at the hands of the rulers of the other nations, in order that
he also with good reason, as avenging himself, having obtained power to
tear away from the other nations as many as he can, may do so, and enact
for them laws, and point out a manner of life agreeably to which they ought
to live, that so he may conduct them to the end to which those of the
former people were conducted who did not commit sin.

CHAP. XXXII.

   And by this means let those who have the capacity of comprehending
truths so profound, learn that he to whom were allotted those who had not
formerly sinned is far more powerful than the others, since he has been
able to make a selection of individuals from the portion of the whole,(3)
and to separate them from those who received them for the purpose of
punishment, and to bring them under the influence of laws, and of a mode of
life which helps to produce an oblivion of their former transgressions.
But, as we have previously observed, these remarks are to be understood as
being made by us with a concealed meaning, by way of pointing out the
mistakes of those who asserted that "the various quarters of the earth were
from the beginning distributed among different superintending spirits, and
being allotted among certain governing powers, were administered in this
way;" from which statement Celsus took occasion to make the remarks
referred to. But since those who wandered away from the east were delivered
over, on account of their sins, to "a reprobate mind," and to "vile
affections," and to "uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,"(4)
in order that, being sated with sin, they might hate it, we shall refuse
our assent to the assertion of Celsus, that "because of the superintending
spirits distributed among the different parts of the earth, what is done
among each nation is rightly done;" for our desire iS to do what is not
agreeable to these spirits.(5) For we see that it is a religious act to do
away with the customs originally established in the various places by means
of laws of a better and more divine character, which were enacted by Jesus,
as one possessed of the greatest power, who has rescued us "from the
present evil world," and "from the princes of the world that come to
nought;" and that it is a mark of irreligion not to throw ourselves at the
feet of Him who has manifested Himself to be holier and more powerful than
all other rulers, and to whom God said, as the prophets many generations
before predicted: "Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."(6)
For He, too, has become the "expectation" of us who from among the heathen
have believed upon Him, and upon His Father, who is God over all things.

CHAP. XXXIII.

   The remarks which we have made not only answer the statements of Celsus
regarding the superintending spirits, but anticipate in some measure what
he afterwards brings forward, when he says: "Let the second party come
forward; and I shall ask them whence they come, and whom they regard as the
originator of their ancestral customs. They will reply, No one, because
they spring from the same source as the Jews themselves, and derive their
instruction and superintendence(7) from no other quarter, and
notwithstanding they have revolted from the Jews." Each one of us, then, is
come "in the last days," when one Jesus has visited us, to the "visible
mountain of the Lord," the Word that is above every word, and to the "house
of God," which is "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of
the truth."(8) And we notice how it is built upon "the tops of the
mountains," i.e., the predictions of all the prophets, which are its
foundations. And this house is exalted above the hills, i.e., those
individuals among men who make a profession of superior attainments in
wisdom and truth; and all the nations come to it, and the "many nations" go
forth, and say to one another, turning to the religion which in the last
days has shone forth through Jesus Christ: "Come ye, and let us go up to
the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will
teach us of His ways, and we will walk in them."(1) For the law came forth
from the dwellers in Sion, and settled among us as a spiritual law.
Moreover, the word of the Lord came forth from that very Jerusalem, that it
might be disseminated through all places, and might judge in the midst of
the heathen selecting those whom it sees to be submissive and rejecting(2)
the disobedient, who are many in number. And to those who inquire of us
whence we come, or who is our founder,(3) we reply that we are come,
agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to "cut down our hostile and insolent
'wordy'(4) swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the
spears formerly employed in war."(5) For we no longer take up "sword
against nation," nor do we "learn war any more," having become children of
peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those whom our
fathers followed, among whom we were "strangers to the covenant," and
having received a law, for which we give thanks to Him that rescued us from
the error (of our ways), saying, "Our fathers honoured lying idols, and
there is not among them one that causeth it to rain."(6) Our
Superintendent, then, and Teacher, having come forth from the Jews,
regulates the whole world by the word of His teaching. And having made
these remarks by way of anticipation, we have refuted as well as we could
the untrue statements of Celsus, by subjoining the appropriate answer.

CHAP. XXXIV.

   But, that we may not pass without notice what Celsus has said between
these and the preceding paragraphs, let us quote his words: "We might
adduce Herodotus as a witness on this point, for he expresses himself as
follows: 'For the people of the cities Mares and Apis, who inhabit those
parts of Egypt that are adjacent to Libya, and who look upon themselves as
Libyans, and not as Egyptians, finding their sacrificial worship
oppressive, and wishing not to be excluded from the use of cows' flesh,
sent to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, saying that there was no relationship
between them and the Egyptians, that they dwelt outside the Delta, that
there was no community of sentiment between them and the Egyptians, and
that they wished to be allowed to partake of all kinds of food. But the god
would not allow them to do as they desired, saying that that country was a
part of Egypt, which was watered by the inundation of the Nile, and that
those were Egyptians who dwell to the south of the city of Elephantine, and
drink of the river Nile.'(7) Such is the narrative of Herodotus. But,"
continues Celsus, "Ammon in divine things would not make a worse ambassador
than the angels of the Jews,(8) so that there is nothing wrong in each
nation observing its established method of worship. Of a truth, we shall
find very great differences prevailing among the nations, and yet each
seems to deem its own by far the best. Those inhabitants of Ethiopia who
dwell in Meroe worship Jupiter and Bacchus alone; the Arabians, Urania and
Bacchus only; all the Egyptians, Osiris and Isis; the Saites, Minerva;
while the Naucratites have recently classed Serapis among their deities,
and the rest according to their respective laws. And some abstain from the
flesh of sheep, and others from that of crocodiles; others, again, from
that of cows, while they regard swine's flesh with loathing. The Scythians,
indeed, regard it as a noble act to banquet upon human beings. Among the
Indians, too, there are some who deem themselves discharging a holy duty in
eating their fathers, and this is mentioned in a certain passage by
Herodotus. For the sake of credibility, I shall again quote his very words,
for he writes as follows: 'For if any one were to make this proposal to all
men, viz., to bid him select out of all existing laws the best, each would
choose, after examination, those of his own country. Men each consider
their own laws much the best, and therefore it is not likely than any other
than a madman would make these things a subject of ridicule. But that such
are the conclusions of all men regarding the laws, may be determined by
many other evidences, and especially by the following illustration. Darius,
during his reign, having summoned before him those Greeks who happened to
be present at the time, inquired of them for how much they would be willing
to eat their deceased fathers? their answer was, that for no consideration
would they do such a thing. After this, Darius summoned those Indians who
are called Callatians. who are in the habit of eating their parents, and
asked of them in the presence of these Greeks, who learned what passed
through an interpreter, for what amount of money they would undertake to
burn their deceased fathers with fire? on which they raised a loud shout,
and bade the king say no more.'(9) Such is the way, then, in which these
matters are regarded. And Pindar appears to me to be right in saying that
'law' is the king of all things."(1)

CHAP. XXXV.

   The argument of Celsus appears to point by these illustrations to this
conclusion: that it is "an obligation incumbent on all men to live
according to their country's customs, in which case they will escape
censure; whereas the Christians, who have abandoned their native usages,
and who are not one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for giving their
adherence to the teaching of Jesus." Let him then tell us whether it is a
becoming thing for philosophers, and those who have been taught not to
yield to superstition, to abandon their country's customs, so as to eat of
those articles of food which are prohibited in their respective cities? or
whether this proceeding of theirs is opposed to what is becoming? For if,
on account of their philosophy, and the instructions which they have
received against superstition, they should eat, in disregard of their
native laws, what was interdicted by their fathers, why should the
Christians (since the Gospel requires them not to busy themselves about
statues and images, or even about any of the created works of God but to
ascend on high, and present the soul to the Creator); when acting in a
similar manner to the philosophers, be censured for so doing? But if, for
the sake of defending the thesis which he has proposed to himself, Celsus,
or those who think with him, should say, that even one who had studied
philosophy would keep his country's laws, then philosophers in Egypt, for
example, would act most ridiculously in avoiding the eating of onions, in
order to observe their country's laws, or certain parts of the body, as the
head and shoulders, in order not to transgress the traditions of their
fathers. And I do not speak of those Egyptians who shudder with fear at the
discharge of wind from the body, because if any one of these were to become
a philosopher, and still observe the laws of his country, he would be a
ridiculous philosopher, acting very unphilosophically.(2) In the same way,
then, he who has been led by the Gospel to worship the God of all things,
and, from regard to his country's laws, lingers here below among images and
statues of men, and does not desire to ascend to the Creator, will resemble
those who have indeed learned philosophy, but who are afraid of things
which ought to inspire no terrors, and who regard it as an act of impiety
to eat of those things which have been enumerated.

CHAP. XXXVI.

   But what sort of being is this Ammon of Herodotus, whose words Celsus
has quoted, as if by way of demonstrating how each one ought to keep his
country's laws? For this Ammon would not allow the people of the cities of
Marea and Apis, who inhabit the districts adjacent to Libya, to treat as a
matter of indifference the use of cows' flesh, which is a thing not only
indifferent in its own nature, but which does not prevent a man from being
noble and virtuous. If Ammon, then, forbade the use of cows' flesh, because
of the advantage which results from the use of the animal in the
cultivation of the ground, and in addition to this, because it is by the
female that the breed is increased, the account would possess more
plausibility. But now he simply requires that those who drink of the Nile
should observe the laws of the Egyptians regarding kine. And hereupon
Celsus, taking occasion to pass a jest upon the employment of the angels
among the Jews as the ambassadors of God, says that "Ammon did not make a
worse ambassador of divine things than did the angels of the Jews," into
the meaning of whose words and manifestations he instituted no
investigation; otherwise he would have seen, that it is not for oxen that
God is concerned, even where He may appear to legislate for them, or for
irrational animals, but that what is written for the sake of men, under the
appearance of relating to irrational animals, contains certain truths of
nature.(3) Celsus, moreover, says that no wrong is committed by any one who
wishes to observe the religious worship sanctioned by the laws of his
country; and it follows, according to his view, that the Scythians commit
no wrong, when, in conformity with their country's laws, they eat human
beings. And those Indians who eat their own fathers are considered,
according to Celsus, to do a religious, or at least not a wicked act. He
adduces, indeed, a statement of Herodotus which favours the principle that
each one ought, from a sense of what is becoming, to obey his country's
laws; and he appears to approve of the custom of those Indians called
Callatians, who in the time of Darius devoured their parents, since, on
Darius inquiring for how great a sum of money they would be willing to lay
aside this usage, they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no more.

CHAP. XXXVII.

   As there are, then, generally two laws presented to us, the one being
the law of nature, of which God would be the legislator, and the other
being the written law of cities, it is a proper thing, when the written law
is not opposed to that of God, for the citizens not to abandon it under
pretext of foreign customs; but when the law of nature, that is, the law of
God, commands what is opposed to the written law, observe whether reason
will not tell us to bid a long farewell to the written code, and to the
desire of its legislators, and to give ourselves up to the legislator God,
and to choose a life agreeable to His word, although in doing so it may be
necessary to encounter dangers, and countless labours, and even death and
dishonour. For when there are some laws in harmony with the will of God,
which are opposed to others which are in force in cities, and when it is
impracticable to please God (and those who administer laws of the kind
referred to), it would be absurd to contemn those acts by means of which we
may please the Creator of all things, and to select those by which we shall
become displeasing to God, though we may satisfy unholy laws, and those who
love them. But since it is reasonable in other matters to prefer the law of
nature, which is the law of God, before the written law, which has been
enacted by men in a spirit of opposition to the law of God, why should we
not do this still more in the case of those laws which relate to God?
Neither shall we, like the Ethiopians who inhabit the parts about Meroe,
worship, as is their pleasure, Jupiter and Bacchus only; nor shall we at
all reverence Ethiopian gods in the Ethiopian manner; nor, like the
Arabians, shall we regard Urania and Bacchus alone as divinities; nor in
any degree at all deities in which the difference of sex has been a ground
of distinction (as among the Arabians, who worship Urania as a female, and
Bacchus as a male deity); nor shall we, like all the Egyptians, regard
Osiris and Isis as gods; nor shall we enumerate Athena among these, as the
Saites are pleased to do. And if to the ancient inhabitants of Naucratis it
seemed good to worship other divinities, while their modern descendants
have begun quite recently to pay reverence to Scrapis, who never was a god
at all, we shall not on that account assert that a new being who was not
formerly a god, nor at all known to men, is a deity. For the Son of God,
"the First-born of all creation," although He seemed recently to have
become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For the holy
Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation;(1)
for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, "Let Us make
man in Our image, after Our likeness."(2)

CHAP. XXXVIII.

   I wish, however, to show how Celsus asserts without any good reason,
that each one reveres his domestic and native institutions. For he declares
that "those Ethiopians who inhabit Meroe know only of two gods, Jupiter and
Bacchus, and worship these alone; and that the Arabians also know only of
two, viz., Bacchus, who is also an Ethiopian deity, and Urania, whose
worship is confined to them." According to his account, neither do the
Ethiopians worship Urania, nor the Arabians Jupiter. If, then, an Ethiopian
were from any accident to fall into the hands of the Arabians, and were to
be judged guilty of impiety because he did not worship Urania, and for this
reason should incur the danger of death, would it be proper for the
Ethiopian to die, or to act contrary to his country's laws, and do
obeisance to Urania? Now, if it would be proper for him to act contrary to
the laws of his country, he will do what is not right, so far as the
language of Celsus is any standard; while, if he should be led away to
death, let him show the reasonableness of selecting such a fate. I know not
whether, if the Ethiopian doctrine taught men to philosophize on the
immortality of the soul, and the honour which is paid to religion, they
would reverence  those as deities who are deemed to be such by the laws of
the country.(3) A similar illustration may be employed in the case of the
Arabians, if from any accident they happened to visit the Ethiopians about
Meroe. For, having been taught to worship Urania and Bacchus alone, they
will not worship Jupiter along with the Ethiopians; and if, adjudged guilty
of impiety, they should be led away to death, let Celsus tell us what it
would be reasonable on their part to do. And with regard to the fables
which relate to Osiris and Isis, it is superfluous and out of place at
present to enumerate them. For although an allegorical meaning may be given
to the fables, they will nevertheless teach us to offer divine worship to
cold water, and to the earth, which is subject to men, and all the animal
creation. For in this way, I presume, they refer Osiris to water, and Isis
to earth; while with regard to Serapis the accounts are numerous and
conflicting, to the effect that very recently he appeared in public,
agreeably to certain juggling tricks performed at the desire of Ptolemy,
who wished to show to the people of Alexandria as it were a visible god.
And we have read in the writings of Numenius the Pythagorean regarding his
formation, that he partakes of the essence of all the animals and plants
that are under the control of nature, that he may appear to have been
fashioned into a god, not by the makers of images alone, with the aid of
profane mysteries, and juggling tricks employed to invoke demons, but also
by magicians and sorcerers, and those demons who are bewitched by their
incantations.(1)

CHAP. XXXIX.

   We must therefore inquire what may be fittingly eaten or not by the
rational and gentle(2) animal, which acts always in conformity with reason;
and not worship at random, sheep, or goats, or kine; to abstain from which
is an act of moderation,(3) for much advantage is derived by men from these
animals. Whereas, is it not the most foolish of all things to spare
crocodiles, and to treat them as sacred to some fabulous divinity or other?
For it is a mark of exceeding stupidity to spare those animals which do not
spare us, and to bestow care on those which make a prey of human beings.
But Celsus approves of those who, in keeping with the laws of their
country, worship and tend crocodiles, and not a word does he say against
them, while the Christians appear deserving of censure, who have been
taught to loath evil, and to turn away from wicked works, and to reverence
and honour virtue as being generated by God, and as being His Son. For we
must not, on account of their feminine name and nature, regard wisdom and
righteousness as females;(4) for these things are in our view the Son of
God, as His genuine disciple has shown, when he said of Him, "Who of God is
made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption."(5) And although we may call Him a "second" God, let men know
that by the term "second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of
including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason
whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen naturally,
directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason," we say, dwelt
in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other
souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share
in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute
righteousness.

CHAP. XL.

   But since, after Celsus had spoken to the above effect of the different
kinds of laws, he adds the following remark, "Pindar appears to me to be
correct in saying that law is king of all things," let us proceed to
discuss this assertion. What law do you mean to say, good sir, is "king of
all things?" If you mean those which exist in the various cities, then such
an assertion is not true. For all men are not governed by the same law. You
ought to have said that "laws are kings of all men," for in every nation
some law is king of all. But if you mean that which is law in the proper
sense, then it is this which is by nature "king of all things;" although
there are some individuals who, having like robbers abandoned the law, deny
its validity, and live lives of violence and injustice. We Christians,
then, who have come to the knowledge of the law which is by nature "king of
all things," and which is the same with the law of God, endeavour to
regulate our lives by its prescriptions, having bidden a long farewell to
those of an unholy kind.

CHAP. XLI.

   Let us notice the charges which are next advanced by Celsus, in which
there is exceedingly little that has reference to the Christians, as most
of them refer to the Jews. His words are: "If, then, in these respects the
Jews were carefully to preserve their own law, they are not to be blamed
for so doing, but those persons rather who have forsaken their own usages,
and adopted those of the Jews. And if they pride themselves on it, as being
possessed of superior wisdom, and keep aloof from intercourse with others,
as not being equally pure with themselves, they have already heard that
their doctrine concerning heaven is not peculiar to them, but, to pass by
all others, is one which has long ago been received by the Persians, as
Herodotus somewhere mentions. 'For they have a custom,' he says, 'of going
up to the tops of the mountains, and of offering sacrifices to Jupiter,
giving the name of Jupiter to the whole circle of the heavens.'(6) And I
think," continues Celsus, "that it makes no difference whether you call the
highest being Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun like the
Egyptians, or Pappaeus like the Scythians. Nor would they be deemed at all
holier than others in this respect, that they observe the rite of
circumcision, for this was done by the Egyptians and Colchians before them;
nor because they abstain from swine's flesh, for the Egyptians practised
abstinence not only from it, but from the flesh of goats, and sheep, and
oxen, and fishes as well; while Pythagoras and his disciples do not eat
beans, nor anything that contains life. It is not probable, however, that
they enjoy God's favour, or are loved by Him differently from others, or
that angels were sent from heaven to them alone, as if they had had
allotted to them 'some region of the blessed,'(1) for we see both
themselves and the country of which they were deemed worthy. Let this
band,(2) then, take its departure, after paying the penalty of its
vaunting, not having a knowledge of the great God, but being led away and
deceived by the artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good
end."

CHAP. XLII.

   It is evident that, by the preceding remarks, Celsus charges the Jews
with falsely giving themselves out as the chosen portion of the Supreme God
above all other nations. And he accuses them of boasting, because they gave
out that they knew the great God, although they did not really know Him,
but were led away by the artifices of Moses, and were deceived by him, and
became his disciples to no good end. Now we have in the preceding pages
already spoken in part of the venerable and distinguished polity of the
Jews, when it existed amongst them as a symbol of the city of God, and of
His temple, and of the sacrificial worship offered in it and at the altar
of sacrifice. But if any one were to turn his attention to the meaning of
the legislator, and to the constitution which he established, and were to
examine the various points relating to him, and compare them with the
present method of worship among other nations, there are none which he
would admire to a greater degree; because, so far as can be accomplished
among mortals, everything that was not of advantage to the human race was
withheld from them, and only those things which are useful bestowed.(3) And
for this reason they had neither gymnastic contests, nor scenic
representations, nor horse-races; nor were there among them women who sold
their beauty to any one who wished to have sexual intercourse without
offspring, and to cast contempt upon the nature of human generation. And
what an advantage was it to be taught from their tender years to ascend
above all visible nature, and to hold the belief that God was not fixed
anywhere within its limits, but to look for Him on high, and beyond the
sphere of all bodily substance!(4) And how great was the advantage which
they enjoyed in being instructed almost from their birth, and as soon as
they could speak,(5) in the immortality of the soul, and in the existence
of courts of justice under the earth, and in the rewards provided for those
who have lived righteous lives! These truths, indeed, were proclaimed in
the veil of fable to children, and to those whose views of things were
childish; while to those who were already occupied in investigating the
truth, and desirous of making progress therein, these fables, so to speak,
were transfigured into the truths which were concealed within them. And I
consider that it was in a manner worthy of their name as the "portion of
God" that they despised all kinds of divination, as that which bewitches
men to no purpose, and which proceeds rather from wicked demons than from
anything of a better nature; and sought the knowledge of future events in
the souls of those who, owing to their high degree of purity, received the
spirit of the Supreme God.

CHAP. XLIII.

   But what need is there to point out how agreeable to sound reason, and
unattended with injury either to master or slave, was the law that one of
the same faith(6) should not be allowed to continue in slavery more than
six years?(7) The Jews, then, cannot be said to preserve their own law in
the same points with the other nations. For it would be censurable in them,
and would involve a charge of insensibility to the superiority of their
law, if they were to believe that they had been legislated for in the same
way as the other nations among the heathen. And although Celsus will not
admit it, the Jews nevertheless are possessed of a wisdom superior not only
to that of the multitude, but also of those who have the appearance of
philosophers; because those who engage in philosophical pursuits, after the
utterance of the most venerable philosophical sentiments, fall away into
the worship of idols and demons, whereas the very lowest Jew directs his
look to the Supreme God alone; and they do well, indeed, so far as this
point is concerned, to pride themselves thereon, and to keep aloof from the
society of others as accursed and impious. And would that they had not
sinned, and transgressed the law, and slain the prophets in former times,
and in these latter days conspired against Jesus, that we might be in
possession of a pattern of a heavenly city which even Plato would have
sought to describe; although I doubt whether he could have accomplished as
much as was done by Moses and those who followed him, who nourished a
"chosen generation," and "a holy nation," dedicated to God, with words free
from all superstition.

CHAP. XLIV.

   But as Celsus would compare the venerable customs of the Jews with the
laws of certain nations, let us proceed to look at them. He is of opinion,
accordingly, that there is no difference between the doctrine regarding
"heaven" and that regarding "God;" and he says that "the Persians, like the
Jews, offer sacrifices to Jupiter upon the tops of the mountains,"--not
observing that, as the Jews were acquainted with one God, so they had only
one holy house of prayer, and one altar of whole burnt-offerings, and one
censer for incense, and one high priest of God. The Jews, then, had nothing
in common with the Persians, who ascend the summits of their mountains,
which are many in number, and offer up sacrifices which have nothing in
common with those which are regulated by the Mosaic code,--in conformity to
which the Jewish priests "served unto the example and shadow of heavenly
things," explaining enigmatically the object of the law regarding the
sacrifices, and the things of which these sacrifices were the symbols. The
Persians therefore may call the "whole circle of heaven" Jupiter; but we
maintain that "the heaven" is neither Jupiter nor God, as we indeed know
that certain beings of a class inferior to God have ascended above the
heavens and all visible nature: and in this sense we understand the words,
"Praise God, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens:
let them praise the name of the LORD."(1)

CHAP. XLV.

   As Celsus, however, is of opinion that it matters nothing whether the
highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun
(as the Egyptians term him), or Pappaeus (as the Scythians entitle him),
let us discuss the point for a little, reminding the reader at the same
time of what has been said above upon this question, when the language of
Celsus led us to consider the subject. And now we maintain that the nature
of names is not, as Aristotle supposes, an enactment of those who impose
them.(2) For the languages which are prevalent among men do not derive
their origin from men, as is evident to those who are able to ascertain the
nature of the charms which are appropriated by the inventors of the
languages differently, according to the various tongues, and to the varying
pronunciations of the names, on which we have spoken briefly in the
preceding pages, remarking that when those names which in a certain
language were possessed of a natural power were translated into another,
they were no longer able to accomplish what they did before when uttered in
their native tongues. And the same peculiarity is found to apply to men;
for if we were to translate the name of one who was called from his birth
by a certain appellation in the Greek language into the Egyptian or Roman,
or any other tongue, we could not make him do or suffer the same things
which he would have done or suffered under the appellation first bestowed
upon him. Nay, even if we translated into the Greek language the name of an
individual who had been originally invoked in the Roman tongue, we could
not produce the result which the incantation professed itself capable of
accomplishing had it preserved the name first conferred upon him. And if
these statements are true when spoken of the names of men, what are we to
think of those which are transferred, for any cause whatever, to the Deity?
For example, something is transferred(3) from the name Abraham when
translated into Greek, and something is signified by that of Isaac, and
also by that of Jacob; and accordingly, if any one, either in an invocation
or in swearing an oath, were to use the expression, "the God of Abraham,"
and "the God of Isaac," and "the God of Jacob," he would produce certain
effects, either owing to the nature of these names or to their powers,
since even demons are vanquiShed and become submissive to him who
pronounces these names; whereas if we say, "the god of the chosen father of
the echo, and the god of laughter, and the god of him who strikes with the
heel,"(4) the mention of the name is attended with no result, as is the
case with other names possessed of no power. And in the same way, if we
translate the word "Israel" into Greek or any other language, we shall
produce no result; but if we retain it as it is, and join it to those
expressions to which such as are skilled in these matters think it ought to
be united, there would then follow some result from the pronunciation of
the word which would accord with the professions of those who employ such
invocations. And we may say the same also of the pronunciation of
"Sabaoth," a word which is frequently employed in incantations; for if we
translate the term into "Lord of hosts," or "Lord of armies," or "Almighty"
(different acceptation of it having been proposed by the interpreters), we
shall accomplish nothing; whereas if we retain the original pronunciation,
we shall, as those who are skilled in such matters maintain, produce some
effect. And the same observation holds good of Adonai. If, then, neither
"Sabaoth" nor "Adonai," when rendered into what appears to be their meaning
in the Greek tongue, can accomplish anything, how much less would be the
result among those who regard it as a matter of indifference whether the
highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!

CHAP. XLVI.

   It was for these and similar mysterious reasons, with which Moses and
the prophets were acquainted, that they forbade the name of other gods to
be pronounced by him who bethought himself of praying to the one Supreme
God alone, or to be remembered by a heart which had been taught to be pure
from all foolish thoughts and words. And for these reasons we should prefer
to endure all manner of suffering rather than acknowledge Jupiter to be
God. For we do not consider Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, nor Jupiter
to be at all divine, but that some demon, unfriendly to men and to the true
God, rejoices under this title.(1) And although the Egyptians were to hold
Ammon before us under threat of death, we would rather die than address him
as God, it being a name used in all probability in certain Egyptian
incantations in which this demon is invoked. And although the Scythians may
call Pappaeus the supreme God, vet we will not yield our assent to this;
granting, indeed, that there is a Supreme Deity, although we do not give
the name Pappaeus to Him as His proper title, but regard it as one which is
agreeable to the demon to whom was allotted the desert of Scythia, with its
people and its language. He, however, who gives God His title in the
Scythian tongue, or in the Egyptian or in any language in which he has been
brought up, will not be guilty of sin.(2)

CHAP. XLVII.

   Now the reason why circumcision is practised among the Jews is not the
same as that which explains its existence among the Egyptians and
Colchians, and therefore it is not to be considered the same circumcision.
And as he who sacrifices does not sacrifice to the same god, although he
appears to perform the rite of sacrifice in a similar manner, and he who
offers up prayer does not pray to the same divinity, although he asks the
same things in his supplication; so, in the same way, if one performs the
rite of circumcision, it by no means follows that it is not a different act
from the circumcision performed upon another. For the purpose, and the law,
and the wish of him who performs the rite, place the act in a different
category. But that the whole subject may be still better understood, we
have to remark that the term for "righteousness"(3) is the same among all
the Greeks; but righteousness is shown to be one thing according to the
view of Epicurus; and another according to the Stoics, who deny the
threefold division of the soul; and a different thing again according to
the followers of Plato, who hold that righteousness is the proper business
of the parts of the soul.(4) And so also the "courage"(5) of Epicures is
one thing, who would undergo some labours in order to escape from a greater
number; and a different thing that of the philosopher of the Porch, who
would choose all virtue for its own sake; and a different thing still that
of Plato, who maintains that virtue itself is the act of the irascible part
of the soul, and who assigns to it a place about the breast.(6) And so
circumcision will be a different thing according to the varying opinions of
those who undergo it. But on such a subject it is unnecessary to speak on
this occasion in a treatise like the present; for whoever desires to see
what led us to the subject, can read what we have said upon it in the
Epistle of Paul to the Romans.

CHAP. XLVIII.

   Although the Jews, then, pride themselves on circumcision, they will
separate it not only from that of the Colchians and Egyptians, but also
from that of the Arabian Ishmaelites; and yet the latter was derived from
their ancestor Abraham, the father of Ishmael, who underwent the rite of
circumcision along with his father. The Jews say that the circumcision
performed on the eighth day is the principal circumcision, and that which
is performed according to circumstances is different; and probably it was
performed on account of the hostility of some angel towards the Jewish
nation, who had the power to injure such of them as were not circumcised,
but was powerless against those who had undergone the rite. This may be
said to appear from what is written in the book of Exodus, where the angel
before the circumcision of Eliezer(7) was able to work against(8) Moses,
but could do nothing after his son was circumcised. And when Zipporah had
learned this, she took a pebble and circumcised her child, and is recorded,
according to the reading of the common copies, to have said, "The blood of
my child's circumcision is stayed," but according to the Hebrew text, "A
bloody husband art thou to me."(9) For she had known the story about a
certain angel having power before the shedding of the blood, but who became
powerless through the blood of circumcision. For which reason the words
were addressed to Moses, "A bloody husband art thou to me." But these
things, which appear rather of a curious nature, and not level to the
comprehension of the multitude, I have ventured to treat at such length;
and now I shall only add, as becomes a Christian, one thing more, and shall
then pass on to what follows. I For this angel might have had power, I
think, over those of the people who were not circumcised, and generally
over all who worshipped only the Creator; and this power lasted so long as
Jesus had not assumed a human body. But when He had done this, and had
undergone the rite of circumcision in His own person, all the power of the
angel over those who practise the same worship, but are not circumcised,(1)
was abolished; for Jesus reduced it to nought by (the power of) His
unspeakable divinity. And therefore His disciples are forbidden to
circumcise themselves, and are reminded (by the apostle): "If ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."(2)

CHAP. XLIX.

   But neither do the Jews pride themselves upon abstaining from swine's
flesh, as if it were some great thing; but upon their having ascertained
the nature of clean and unclean animals, and the cause of the distinction,
and of swine being classed among the unclean. And these distinctions were
signs of certain things until the advent of Jesus; after whose coming it
was said to His disciple, who did not yet comprehend the doctrine
concerning these matters, but who said, "Nothing that is common or unclean
hath entered into my mouth,"(3) "What God hath cleansed, call not thou
common." It therefore in no way affects either the Jews or us that the
Egyptian priests abstain not only from the flesh of swine, but also from
that of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fish. But since it is not that
"which entereth into the mouth that defiles a  man," and since "meat does
not commend us to God," we do not set great store on refraining from
eating, nor yet are we induced to eat from a gluttonous appetite. And
therefore, so far as we are concerned, the followers of Pythagoras, who
abstain from all things that contain life may do as they please; only
observe the different reason for abstaining from things that have life on
the part of the Pythagoreans and our ascetics. For the former abstain on
account of the fable about the transmigration of souls, as the poet says: -
-

   "And some one, lifting up his beloved son,
   Will slay him after prayer; O how foolish he!"(4)

We, however, when we do abstain, do so because "we keep under our body, and
bring it into subjection,"(5) and desire "to mortify our members that are
upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil
concupiscence;"(6) and we use every effort to "mortify the deeds of the
flesh."(7)

CHAP. L.

   Celsus, still expressing his opinion regarding the Jews, says: "It is
not probable that they are in great favour with God, or are regarded by Him
with more affection than others, or that angels are sent by Him to them
alone, as if to them had been allotted some region of the blessed. For we
may see both the people themselves, and the country of which they were
deemed worthy." We shall refute this, by remarking that it is evident that
this nation was in great favour with God, from the fact that the God who
presides over all things was called the God of the Hebrews, even by those
who were aliens to our faith. And because they were in favour with God,
they were not abandoned by Him;(8) but although few in number, they
continued to enjoy the protection of the divine power, so that in the reign
of Alexander of Macedon they sustained no injury from him, although they
refused, on account of certain covenants and oaths, to take up arms against
Darius. They say that on that occasion the Jewish high priest, clothed in
his sacred robe, received obeisance from Alexander, who declared that he
had beheld an individual arrayed in this fashion, who announced to him in
his sleep that he was to be the subjugator of the whole of Asia.(9)
Accordingly, we Christians maintain that "it was the fortune of that people
in a remarkable degree to enjoy God's favour, and to be loved by Him in a
way different from others;" but that this economy of things and this divine
favour were transferred to us, after Jesus had conveyed the power which had
been manifested among the Jews to those who had become converts to Him from
among the heathen. And for this reason, although the Romans desired to
perpetrate many atrocities against the Christians, in order to ensure their
extermination, they were unsuccessful; for there was a divine hand which
fought on their behalf, and whose desire it was that the word of God should
spread from one comer of the land of Judea throughout the whole human race.

CHAP. LI.

   But seeing that we have answered to the best of our ability the charges
brought by Celsus against the Jews and their doctrine, let us proceed to
consider what follows, and to prove that it is no empty boast on our part
when we make. a profession of knowing the great God, and that we have not
been led away by any juggling tricks(1) of Moses (as Celsus imagines), or
even of our own Saviour Jesus; but that for a good end we listen to the God
who speaks in Moses, and have accepted Jesus, whom he testifies to be God,
as the Son of God, in hope of receiving the best rewards if we regulate our
lives according to His word. And we shall willingly pass over what we have
already stated by way of anticipation on the points, "whence we came and
who is our leader, and what law proceeded from Him." And if Celsus would
maintain that there is no difference between us and the Egyptians, who
worship the goat, or the ram, or the crocodile, or the ox, or the river-
horse, or the dog-faced baboon,(2) or the cat, he can ascertain if it be
so, and so may any other who thinks alike on the subject. We, however, have
to the best of our ability defended ourselves at great length in the
preceding pages on the subject of the honour which we render to our Jesus,
pointing out that we have found the better part;(3) and that in showing
that the truth which is contained in the teaching of Jesus Christ is pure
and unmixed with error, we are not commending ourselves, but our Teacher,
to whom testimony was borne through many witnesses by the Supreme God and
the prophetic writings among the Jews, and by the very clearness of the
case itself, for it is demonstrated that He could not have accomplished
such mighty works without the divine help.

CHAP. LII.

   But the statement of Celsus which we wish to examine at present is the
following: "Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced
against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an
angel. But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or were there
others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would
be convicted of telling lies against themselves. For they assert that on
many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of them together, and that
these became wicked, and were cast under the earth and punished with
chains, and that from this source originate the warm springs, which are
their tears; and, moreover, that there came an angel to the tomb of this
said being--according to some, indeed, one, but according to others, two--
who answered the women that he had arisen. For the Son of God could not
himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed the help of another to roll
away the stone. And again, on account of the pregnancy of Mary, there came
an angel to the carpenter, and once more another angel, in order that they
might take up the young Child and flee away (into Egypt). But what need is
there to particularize everything, or to count up the number of angels said
to have been sent to Moses, and others amongst them? If, then, others were
sent, it is manifest that he also came from the same God. But he may be
supposed to have the appearance of announcing something of greater
importance (than those who preceded him), as if the Jews had been
committing sin, or corrupting their religion, or doing deeds of impiety;
for these things are obscurely hinted at."

CHAP. LIII.

   The preceding remarks might suffice as an answer to the charges of
Celsus, so far as regards those points in which our Saviour Jesus Christ is
made the subject of special investigation. But that we may avoid the
appearance of intentionally passing over any portion of his work, as if we
were unable to meet him, let us, even at the risk of being tautological
(since we are challenged to this by Celsus), endeavour as far as we can
with all due brevity to continue our discourse, since perhaps something
either more precise or more novel may occur to us upon the several topics.
He says, indeed, that "he has omitted the refutations which have been
adduced against the claims which Christians advance on behalf of their
teacher," although he has not omitted anything which he was able to bring
forward, as is manifest from his previous language, but makes this
statement only as an empty rhetorical device. That we are not refuted,
however, on the subject of our great Saviour, although the accuser may
appear to refute us, will be manifest to those who peruse in a spirit of
truth-loving investigation all that is predicted and recorded of Him. And,
in the next place, since he considers that he makes a concession in saying
of the Saviour, "Let him appear to be really an angel," we reply that we do
not accept of such a concession from Celsus; but we look to the work of Him
who came to visit the whole human race in His word and teaching, as each
one of His adherents was capable of receiving Him. And this was the work of
one who, as the prophecy regarding Him said, was not simply an angel, but
the "Angel of the great counsel:"(4) for He announced to men the great
counsel of the God and Father of all things regarding them, (saying) of
those who yield themselves up to a life of pure religion, that they ascend
by means of their great deeds to God; but of those who do not adhere to
Him, that they place themselves at a distance from God, and journey on to
destruction through their unbelief of Him. He then continues: "If even the
angel came to men, is he the first and only one who came, or did others
come on former occasions?" And he thinks he can meet either of these
dilemmas at great length, although there is not a single real Christian who
asserts that Christ was the only being that visited the human race. For, as
Celsus says, "If they should say the only one," there are others who
appeared to different individuals.

CHAP. LIV.

   In the next place, he proceeds to answer himself as he thinks fit in
the following terms: "And so he is not the only one who is recorded to have
visited the human race, as even those who, under pretext of teaching in the
name of Jesus, have apostatized from the Creator as an inferior being, and
have given in their adherence to one who is a superior God and father of
him who visited (the world), assert that before him certain beings came
from the Creator to visit the human race." Now, as it is in the spirit of
truth that we investigate all that relates to the subject, we shall remark
that it is asserted by Apelles, the celebrated disciple of Marcion, who
became the founder of a certain sect, and who treated the writings of the
Jews as fabulous, that Jesus is the only one that came to visit the human
race. Even against him, then, who maintained that Jesus was the only one
that came from God to men, it would be in vain for Celsus to quote the
statements regarding the descent of other angels, seeing Apelles
discredits, as we have already mentioned, the miraculous narratives of the
Jewish Scriptures; and much more will he decline to admit what Celsus has
adduced, from not understanding the contents of the book of Enoch. No one,
then, convicts us of falsehood, or of making contradictory assertions, as
if we maintained both that our Saviour was the only being that ever came to
men, and yet that many others came on different occasions. And in a most
confused manner, moreover, does be adduce, when examining the subject of
the visits of angels to men, what he has derived, without seeing its
meaning, from the contents of the book of Enoch; for he does not appear to
have read the passages in question, nor to have been aware that the books
which bear the name Enoch(1) do not at all circulate in the Churches as
divine, although it is from this source that he might be supposed to have
obtained the statement, that "sixty or seventy angels descended at the same
time, who fell into a state of wickedness."

CHAP. LV.

   But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of candour what he has not
discovered in the contents of the book of Genesis, that "the sons of God,
seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to them wives of all
whom they chose,"(2) we shall nevertheless even on this point persuade
those who are capable of understanding the meaning of the prophet, that
even before us there was one who referred this narrative to the doctrine
regarding souls, which became possessed with a desire for the corporeal
life of men, and this in metaphorical language, he said, was termed
"daughters of men." But whatever may be the meaning of the "sons of God
desiring to possess the daughters of men," it will not at all contribute to
prove that Jesus was not the only one who visited mankind as an angel, and
who manifestly became the Saviour and benefactor of all those who depart
from the flood of wickedness. Then, mixing up and confusing whatever he had
at any time heard, or had anywhere found written--whether held to be of
divine origin among Christians or not--he adds: "The sixty or seventy who
descended together were cast under the earth, and were punished with
chains." And he quotes (as from the book of Enoch, but without naming it)
the following: "And hence it is that the tears of these angels are warm
springs,"--a thing neither mentioned nor heard of in the Churches of God!
For no one was ever so foolish as to materialize into human tears those
which were shed by the angels who had come down from heaven. And if it were
right to pass a jest upon what is advanced against us in a serious spirit
by Celsus, we might observe that no one would ever have said that hot
springs, the greater part of which are fresh water, were the tears of the
angels, since tears are saltish in their nature, unless indeed the angels,
in the opinion of Celsus, shed tears which are fresh.

CHAP. LVI.

   Proceeding immediately after to mix up and compare with one another
things that are dissimilar, and incapable of being united, he subjoins to
his statement regarding the sixty or seventy angels who came down from
heaven, and who, according to him, shed fountains of warm water for tears,
the following: "It is related also that there came to the tomb of Jesus
himself, according to some, two angels, according to others, one;" having
failed to notice, I think, that Matthew and Mark speak of one, and Luke and
John of two, which statements are not contradictory. For they who mention
"one," say that it was he who rolled away the stone from the sepulchre;
while they who mention "two," refer to those who appeared in shining
raiment to the women that repaired to the sepulchre, or who were seen
within sitting in white garments. Each of these occurrences might now be
demonstrated to have actually taken place, and to be indicative of a
figurative meaning existing in these "phenomena," (and intelligible) to
those who were prepared to behold the resurrection of the Word. Such a
task, however, does not belong to our present purpose, but rather to an
exposition of the Gospel.(1)

CHAP. LVII.

   Now, that miraculous appearances have sometimes been witnessed by human
beings, is related by the Greeks; and not only by those of them who might
be suspected of composing fabulous narratives, but also by those who have
given every evidence of being genuine philosophers, and of having related
with perfect truth what had happened to them. Accounts of this kind we have
read in the writings of Chrysippus of Soli, and also some things of the
same kind relating to Pythagoras; as well as in some of the more recent
writers who lived a very short time ago, as in the treatise of Plutarch of
Chaeronea "on the Soul," and in the second book of the work of Numenius the
Pythagorean on the "Incorruptibility of the Soul." Now, when such accounts
are related by the Greeks, and especially by the philosophers among them,
they are not to be received with mockery and ridicule, nor to be regarded
as fictions and fables; but when those who are devoted to the God of all
things, and who endure all kinds of injury, even to death itself, rather
than allow a falsehood to escape their lips regarding God, announce the
appearances of angels which they have themselves witnessed, they are to be
deemed unworthy of belief, and their words are not to be regarded as true!
Now it is opposed to sound reason to judge in this way whether individuals
are speaking truth or falsehood. For those who act honestly, only after a
long and careful examination into the details of a subject, slowly and
cautiously express their opinion of the veracity or falsehood of this or
that person with regard to the marvels which they may relate; since it is
the case that neither do all men show themselves worthy of belief, nor do
all make it distinctly evident that they are relating to men only fictions
and fables. Moreover, regarding the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we
have this remark to make, that it is not at all wonderful if, on such an
occasion, either one or two angels should have appeared to announce that
Jesus had risen from the dead, and to provide for the safety of those who
believed in such an event to the advantage of their souls. Nor does it
appear to me at all unreasonable, that those who believe in the
resurrection of Jesus, and who manifest, as a fruit of their faith not to
be lightly esteemed, their possession of a virtuous(2) life, and their
withdrawal from the flood of evils, should not be unattended by angels who
lend their help in accomplishing their conversion to God.

CHAP. LVIII.

   But Celsus challenges the account also that an angel rolled away the
stone from the sepulchre where the body of Jesus lay, acting like a  lad at
school, who should bring a charge against any one by help of a string of
commonplaces. And, as if he had discovered some clever objection to the
narrative, he remarks: "The Son of God, then, it appears, could not open
his tomb, but required the aid of another to roll away the stone." Now, not
to overdo the discussion. of this matter, or to have the appearance of
unreasonably introducing philosophical remarks, by explaining the
figurative meaning at present, I shall simply say of the narrative alone,
that it does appear in itself a more respectful proceeding, that the
servant and inferior should have rolled away the stone, than that such an
act should have been performed by Him whose resurrection was to be for the
advantage of mankind. I do not speak of the desire of those who conspired
against the Word, and who wished to put Him to death, and to show to all
men that He was dead and non-existent,(3) that His tomb should not be
opened, in order that no one might behold the Word alive after their
conspiracy; but the "Angel of God" who came into the world for the
salvation of men, with the help of another angel, proved more powerful than
the conspirators, and rolled away the weighty stone, that those who deemed
the Word to be dead might be convinced that He is not with the "departed,"
but is alive, and precedes those who are willing to follow Him, that He may
manifest to them those truths which come after those which He formerly
showed them at the time of their first entrance (into the school of
Christianity), when they were as yet incapable of receiving deeper
instruction. In the next place, I do not understand what advantage he
thinks will accrue to his purpose when he ridicules the account of "the
angel's visit to Joseph regarding the pregnancy of Mary;" and again, that
of the angel to warn the parents "to take up the new-born Child, whose life
was in danger, and to flee with it into Egypt." Concerning these matters,
however, we have in the preceding pages answered his statements. But what
does Celsus mean by saying, that "according to the Scriptures, angels are
recorded to have been sent to Moses, and others as well?" For it appears to
me to contribute nothing to his purpose, and especially because none of
them made any effort to accomplish, as far as in his power, the conversion
of the human race from their sins. Let it be granted, however, that other
angels were sent from God, but that he came to announce something of
greater importance (than any others who preceded him); and when the Jews
had fallen into sin, and corrupted their religion, and had done unholy
deeds, transferred the kingdom of God to other husbandmen, who in all the
Churches take special care of themselves,(1) and use every endeavour by
means of a holy life, and by a doctrine conformable thereto, to win over to
the God of all things those who would rush away from the teaching of
Jesus.(2)

CHAP. LIX.

   Celsus then continues: "The Jews accordingly, and these (clearly
meaning the Christians), have the same God;" and as if advancing a
proposition which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the following
assertion: "It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great Church(3)
admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the creation of the
world which are current among the Jews, viz., concerning the six days and
the seventh;" on which day, as the Scripture says, God "ceased"(4) from His
works, retiring into the contemplation of Himself, but on which, as Celsus
says (who does not abide by the letter of the history, and who does not
understand its meaning), God "rested,"(5)--a term which is not found in the
record. With respect, however, to the creation of the world, and the
"rest(6) which is reserved after it for the people of God," the subject is
extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation. In the
next place, as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book, and to
give it an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain statements,
such as the following, relating to the first man, of whom he says: "We give
the same account. as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him as
they do." However, as regards "the conspiracies of brothers against one
another," we know of none such, save that Cain conspired against Abel, and
Esau against Jacob; but not Abel against Cain, nor Jacob against Esau: for
if this had been the case, Celsus would have been correct in saying that we
give the same accounts as do the Jews of "the conspiracies of brothers
against one another." Let it be granted, however, that we speak of the same
descent into Egypt as they, and of their return(7) thence, which was not a
"flight,"(8) as Celsus considers it to have been, what does that avail
towards founding an accusation against us or against the Jews? Here,
indeed, he thought to cast ridicule upon us, when, in speaking of the
Hebrew people, he termed their exodus a "flight;" but when it was his
business to investigate the account of the punishments inflicted by God
upon Egypt, that topic he purposely passed by in silence.

CHAP. LX.

   If, however, it be necessary to express ourselves with precision in our
answer to Celsus, who thinks that we hold the same opinions on the matters
in question as do the Jews, we would say that we both agree that the books
(of Scripture) were written by the Spirit of God, but that we do not agree
about the meaning of their contents; for we do not regulate our lives like
the Jews, because we are of opinion that the literal acceptation of the
laws is not that which conveys the meaning of the legislation. And we
maintain, that "when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart,"(9)
because the meaning of the law of Moses has been concealed from those who
have not welcomed(10) the way which is by Jesus Christ. But we know that if
one turn to the Lord (for "the Lord is that Spirit"), the veil being taken
away, "he beholds, as in a mirror with unveiled face, the glory of the
Lord" in those thoughts which are concealed in their literal expression,
and to his own glory becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term
"face" being used figuratively for the "understanding," as one would call
it without a figure, in which is the face of the "inner man," filled with
light and glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the
law.

CHAP. LXI.

   After the above remarks he proceeds as follows: "Let no one suppose
that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the
same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different
one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former
that the Son came," Now, if he imagine that the existence of numerous
heresies among the Christians is a ground of accusation against
Christianity, why, in a similar way, should it not be a ground of
accusation against philosophy, that the various sects of philosophers
differ from each other, not on small and indifferent points, but upon those
of the highest importance? Nay, medicine also ought to be a subject of
attack, on account of its many conflicting schools. Let it be admitted,
then, that there are amongst us some who deny that our God is the same as
that of the Jews: nevertheless, on that account those are not to be blamed
who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same Deity is the God
of the Jews and of the Gentiles alike, as Paul, too, distinctly says, who
was a convert from Judaism to Christianity, "I thank my God, whom I serve
from my forefathers with a pure conscience."(1) And let it be admitted
also, that there is a third class who call certain persons "carnal," and
others "spiritual,"--I think he here means the followers of Valentinus,--
yet what does this avail against us, who belong to the Church, and who make
it an accusation against such as hold that certain natures are saved, and
that others perish in consequence of their natural constitution?(2) And let
it be admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as
Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves
philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of
providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who
introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who are
the disciples of Jesus. Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some
who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and
yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance
with the Jewish law,--and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who
either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this,
and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings,--what does that
avail by way of charge against such as belong to the Church, and whom
Celsus has styled "those of the multitude?"(3) He adds, also, that certain
of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl,(4) having probably
misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a
prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists.

   He next pours down Upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the
existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their
teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus
that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God,
but term Simon the "power" of God, regarding whom they relate certain
marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become
possessed of similar powers to those with which be believed Jesus to be
endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was amongst the
multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a
good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of
Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these
countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and
bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain
Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and
others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha.
We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our
ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which
they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far
as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with
these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was
Marcion.

CHAP. LXIII.

   In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing still
more than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual custom,
that "there are others who have wickedly invented some being as their
teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy
and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous." And he
seems to me, indeed, in touching on these matters, to say with a certain
degree of truth, that there are certain others who have wickedly invented
another demon, and who have found him to be their lord, as they wallow
about in the great darkness of their ignorance. With respect, however, to
Antinous, who is compared with our Jesus, we shall not repeat what we have
already said in the preceding pages. "Moreover," he continues, "these
persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner
of things shameful to be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point
for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred." Now, in
answer to this, we have already said that in philosophy and medicine sects
are to be found warring against sects. We, however, who are followers of
the word of Jesus, and have exercised ourselves in thinking, and saying,
and doing what is in harmony with His words, "when reviled, bless; being
persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat;"(1) and we would not
utter "all manner of things shameful to be spoken" against those who have
adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every exertion
to raise them to a better condition through adherence to the Creator alone,
and lead them to perform every act as those who will (one day) be judged.
And if those who hold different opinions will not be convinced, we observe
the injunction laid down for the treatment of such: "A man that is a
heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that he
that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."(2)
Moreover, we who know the maxim, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and this
also, "Blessed are the meek," would not regard with hatred the corrupters
of Christianity, nor term those who had fallen into error Circes and
flattering deceivers.(3)

CHAP. LXIV.

   Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the statement of the
apostle, which declares that "in the latter times some shall depart from
the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils;
speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath
created to be received with thanksgiving of them who believe;"(4) and to
have misunderstood also those who employed these declarations of the
apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines of Christianity. And it
is owing to this cause that Celsus has said that "certain among the
Christians are called 'cauterized in the ears;' "(5) and also that some are
termed "enigmas,"(6)--a term which we have never met. The expression
"stumbling-block"(7) is, indeed, of frequent occurrence in these writings,-
-an appellation which we are accustomed to apply to those who turn away
simple persons, and those who are easily deceived, from sound doctrine. But
neither we, nor, I imagine, any other, whether Christian or heretic, know
of any who are styled Sirens, who betray and deceive,(8) and stop their
ears, and change into swine those whom they delude. And yet this man, who
affects to know everything, uses such language as the following: "You may
hear," he says, "all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other
in their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words,
'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.'" And this is the only
phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul's writings; and
yet why should we not also employ innumerable other quotations from the
Scriptures, such as, "For though we do walk in the flesh, we do not war
after the flesh; (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty
through God to the pulling down of strongholds,) casting down imaginations,
and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God?"(9)

CHAP. LXV.

    But since he asserts that "you may hear all those who differ so widely
saying, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world,'" we shall
show the falsity of such a statement. For there are certain heretical sects
which do not receive  the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, as the two sects of
Ebionites, and those who are termed Encratites.(10) Those, then, who do not
regard the apostle as a holy and wise man, will not adopt his language, and
say, "The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world." And consequently
in this point, too, Celsus is guilty of falsehood. He continues, moreover,
to linger over the accusations which he brings against the diversity of
sects which exist, but does not appear to me to be accurate in the language
which he employs, nor to have carefully observed or understood how it is
that those Christians who have made progress in their studies say that they
are possessed of greater knowledge than the Jews; and also, whether they
acknowledge the same Scriptures, but interpret them differently, or whether
they do not recognise these books as divine. For we find both of these
views prevailing among the sects. He then continues: "Although they have no
foundation for the doctrine, let us examine the system itself; and, in the
first place, let us mention the corruptions which they have made through
ignorance and misunderstanding, when in the discussion of elementary
principles they express their opinions in the most absurd manner on things
which they do not understand, such as the following." And then, to certain
expressions which are continually in the mouths of the believers in
Christianity, he opposes certain others from the writings of the
philosophers, with the object of making it appear that the noble sentiments
which Celsus supposes to be used by Christians have been expressed in
better and clearer language by the philosophers, in order that he might
drag away to the study of philosophy those who are caught by opinions which
at once evidence their noble and religious character. We shall, however,
here terminate the fifth book, and begin the sixth with what follows.


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.