In like
manner, as the statement is false “that the Hebrews, being (originally)
Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their political existence) from the time
of their rebellion,” so also is this, “that in the days of Jesus others who
were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers;” for
neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the
part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to
the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence
in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in
defence of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the
Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to
death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to
offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping
with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the
killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed
their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a
character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on
any occasion to resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper
into things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt, that it is a miracle
if a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it
had been a gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, “As they went
forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not understand.” [Book 3
Chapter 7]
In the
following way, also, we may conclude that they who came out of Egypt with Moses
were not Egyptians; for if they had been Egyptians, their names also
would be Egyptian, because in every language the designations (of persons and
things) are kindred to the language. But if it is certain, from the names being
Hebrew, that the people were not Egyptians,—and the Scriptures are full of Hebrew
names, and these bestowed, too, upon their children while they were in
Egypt,—it is clear that the Egyptian account is false, which asserts that they
were Egyptians, and went forth from Egypt with Moses. Now it is absolutely certain
that, being descended, as the Mosaic history records, from Hebrew ancestors,
they employed a language from which they also took the names which they
conferred upon their children. But with regard to the Christians, because they
were taught not to avenge themselves upon their enemies (and have thus observed
laws of a mild and philanthropic character); and because they would not,
although able, have made war even if they had received authority to do so,—they
have obtained this reward from God, that He has always warred in their behalf,
and on certain occasions has restrained those who rose up against them and desired
to destroy them. For in order to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged
in a struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted to despise
death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who can be easily
numbered, have endured death for the sake of Christianity,—God not permitting
the whole nation to be exterminated, but desiring that it should continue, and
that the whole world should be filled with this salutary and religious
doctrine. And again, on the other hand, that those who were of weaker minds
might recover their courage and rise superior to the thought of death, God
interposed His providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an act of His
will alone all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither kings, nor
rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond a certain
point. Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus, “that a revolt
was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish state, and subsequently of
Christianity.” [Book 3 Chapter 8]
He says, in
addition, that “all the Christians were of one mind,” not observing, even in
this particular, that from the beginning there were differences of opinion
among believers regarding the meaning of the books held to be divine. At all
events, while the apostles were still preaching, and while eye-witnesses of
(the works of) Jesus were still teaching His doctrine, there was no small discussion
among the converts from Judaism regarding Gentile believers, on the point
whether they ought to observe Jewish customs, or should reject the burden of
clean and unclean meats, as not being obligatory on those who had abandoned
their ancestral Gentile customs, and had become believers in Jesus. Nay, even
in the Epistles of Paul, who was contemporary with those who had seen Jesus,
certain particulars are found mentioned as having been the subject of
dispute,—viz., respecting the resurrection, and whether it were already past,
and the day of the Lord, whether it were nigh at hand or not. Nay, the very
exhortation to “avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called: which some professing, have erred concerning the faith,” is
enough to show that from the very beginning, when, as Celsus imagines,
believers were few in number, there were certain doctrines interpreted in
different ways. [Book 3 Chapter 11]
In the next
place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies in Christianity as
being a ground of accusation against it, saying that “when Christians had
greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and split up into factions,
each individual desiring to have his own party;” and further, that “being thus
separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to
speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is
the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are
determined in different ways by the various sects.” In reply to which, we say that
heresies of different kinds have never originated from any matter in which the
principle involved was not important and beneficial to human life. For since the
science of medicine is useful and necessary to the human race, and many are the
points of dispute in it respecting the manner of curing bodies, there are
found, for this reason, numerous heresies confessedly prevailing in the science
of medicine among the Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous
nations who profess to employ medicine. And, again, since philosophymakes a
profession of the truth, and promises a knowledge of existing things with a
view to the regulation of life, and endeavours to teach what is advantageous to
our race, and since the investigation of these matters is attended with great
differences of opinion, innumerable heresies have consequently sprung up in
philosophy, some of which are more celebrated than others. Even Judaism itself
afforded a pretext for the origination of heresies, in the different
acceptation accorded to the writings of Moses and those of the prophets. So,
then, seeing Christianity appeared an object of veneration to men, not to the
more servile class alone, as Celsus supposes, but to many among the Greeks who
were devoted to literary pursuits, there necessarily originated heresies,—not
at all, however, as the result of faction and strife, but through the earnest
desire of many literary men to become acquainted with the doctrines of
Christianity. The consequence of which was, that, taking in different
acceptations those discourses which were believed by all to be divine, there
arose heresies, which received their names from those individuals who admired,
indeed, the origin of Christianity, but who were led, in some way or other, by
certain plausible reasons, to discordant views. And yet no one would act
rationally in avoiding medicine because of its heresies; nor would he who aimed
at that which is seemly entertain a hatred of philosophy, and adduce its many heresies
as a pretext for his antipathy. And so neither are the sacred books of Moses
and the prophets to be condemned on account of the heresies in Judaism. [Book 3
Chapter 12]
Now, if
these arguments hold good, why should we not defend, in the same way, the
existence of heresies in Christianity? And respecting these, Paul appears to me
to speak in a very striking manner when he says, “For there must be heresies
among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you.” For as
that man is “approved” in medicine who, on account of his experience in various
(medical) heresies, and his honest examination of the majority of them, has selected
the preferable system,—and as the great proficient in philosophy is he who,
after acquainting himself experimentally with the various views, has given in
his adhesion to the best,—so I would say that the wisest Christian was he who
had carefully studied the heresies both of Judaism and Christianity. Whereas he
who finds fault with Christianity because of its heresies would find fault also
with the teaching of Socrates, from whose school have issued many others of
discordant views. Nay, the opinions of Plato might be chargeable with error, on
account of Aristotle’s having separated from his school, and founded a new
one,—on which subject we have remarked in the preceding book. But it appears to
me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain heresies which do not possess
even the name of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps he had heard of the
sects called Ophites and Cainites, or some others of a similar nature, which
had departed in all points from the teaching of Jesus. And yet surely this
furnishes no ground for a charge against the Christian doctrine. [Book 3
Chapter 13]
But again,
that it is not the fear of external enemies which strengthens our union, is plain
from the fact that this cause, by God’s will, has already, for a considerable
time, ceased to exist. And it is probable that the secure existence, so far as
regards the world, enjoyed by believers at present, will come to an end, since
those who calumniate Christianity in every way are again attributing the present
frequency of rebellion to the multitude of believers, and to their not being
persecuted by the authorities as in old times. For we have learned from the
Gospel neither to relax our efforts in days of peace, and to give ourselves up
to repose, nor, when the world makes war upon us, to become cowards, and
apostatize from the love of the God of all things which is in Jesus Christ. And
we clearly manifest the illustrious nature of our origin, and do not (as Celsus
imagines) conceal it, when we impress upon the minds of our first converts a
contempt for idols, and images of all kinds, and, besides this, raise their
thoughts from the worship of created things instead of God, and elevate them to
the universal Creator; clearly showing Him to be the subject of prophecy, both
from the predictions regarding Him—of which there are many—and from those
traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are able
intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the apostles.
[Book 3 Chapter 15]
“But what
the legends are of every kind which we gather together, or the terrors which we
invent,” as Celsus without proof asserts, he who likes may show. I know not,
indeed, what he means by “inventing terrors,” unless it be our doctrine of God
as Judge, and of the condemnation of men for their deeds, with the various
proofs derived partly from Scripture, partly from probable reason. [Book 3
Chapter 16]
But this low
jester Celsus, omitting no species of mockery and ridicule which can be
employed against us, mentions in his treatise the Dioscuri, and Hercules, and
Æsculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed by the Greeks to have become gods
after being men, and says that “we cannot bear to call such beings gods,
because they were at first men, and yet they manifested many noble qualifies,
which were displayed for the benefit of mankind, while we assert that Jesus was
seen after His death by His own followers;” and he brings against us an
additional charge, as if we said that “He was seen indeed, but was only a
shadow!” Now to this we reply, that it was very artful of Celsus not here
clearly to indicate that he did not regard these beings as gods, for he was
afraid of the opinion of those who might peruse his treatise, and who might
suppose him to be an atheist; whereas, if he had paid respect to what appeared
to him to be the truth, he would not have feigned to regard them as
gods. [Book 3 Chapter 22]
But we, in
proving the facts related of our Jesus from the prophetic Scriptures, and
comparing afterwards His history with them, demonstrate that no dissoluteness
on His part is recorded. For even they who conspired against Him, and who
sought false witnesses to aid them, did not find even any plausible grounds for
advancing a false charge against Him, so as to accuse Him of licentiousness;
but His death was indeed the result of a conspiracy, and bore no resemblance to
the death of Æsculapius by lightning. And what is there that is venerable in
the madman Dionysus, and his female garments, that he should be
worshipped as a god? And if they who would defend such beings betake themselves
to allegorical interpretations, we must examine each individual instance, and
ascertain whether it is well founded, and also in each particular case, whether
those beings can have a real existence, and are deserving of respect and
worship who were torn by the Titans, and cast down from their heavenly throne.
Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop—for I will take
the word that Celsus employs—did really appear, and Celsus makes a false
accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. And
let the statements of their histories and that of Jesus be carefully compared
together. Will Celsus have the former to be true, but the latter, although
recorded by eye-witnesses who showed by their acts that they clearly understood
the nature of what they had seen, and who manifested their state of mind by
what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of His Gospel, to be inventions?
Now, who is there that, desiring to act always in conformity with right reason,
would yield his assent at random to what is related of the one, but would rush
to the history of Jesus, and without examination refuse to believe what is
recorded of Him. [Book 3 Chapter 23]
And again,
when it is said of Æsculapius that a great multitude both of Greeks and
Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen, and still see, no mere
phantom, but Æsculapius himself, healing and doing good, and foretelling the
future; Celsus requires us to believe this, and finds no fault with the
believers in Jesus, when we express our belief in such stories, but when we
give our assent to the disciples, and eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus,
who clearly manifest the honesty of their convictions (because we see their
guilelessness, as far as it is possible to see the conscience revealed in
writing), we are called by him a set of “silly” individuals, although he cannot
demonstrate that an incalculable number, as he asserts, of Greeks and
Barbarians acknowledge the existence of Æsculapius; while we, if we deem this a
matter of importance, can clearly show a countless multitude of Greeks and
Barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus. And some give evidence of
their having received through this faith a marvellous power by the cures which
they perform, revoking no other name over those who need their help than that
of the God of all things, and of Jesus, along with a mention of His history.
For by these means we too have seen many persons freed from grievous
calamities, and from distractions of mind, and madness, and countless other
ills, which could be cured neither by men nor devils. [Book 3 Chapter 24]
Now, in
answer to this account of Aristeas, we have to say, that if Celsus had adduced
it as history, without signifying his own assent to its truth, it is in a
different way that we should have met his argument. But since he asserts that
he “disappeared through the intervention of the divinity,” and “showed himself
again in an unmistakeable manner,” and “visited many parts of the world,” and
“made marvellous announcements;” and, moreover, that there was “an oracle of
Apollo, enjoining the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god,” he gives the
accounts relating to him as upon his own authority, and with his full assent.
And (this being the case), we ask, How is it possible that, while supposing the
marvels related by the disciples of Jesus regarding their Master to be wholly
fictitious, and finding fault with those who believe them, you, O Celsus, do
not regard these stories of yours to be either products of jugglery or
inventions? And how, while charging others with an irrational belief in the
marvels recorded of Jesus, can you show yourself justified in giving credence
to such statement as the above, without producing some proof or evidence of the
alleged occurrences having taken place? Or do Herodotus and Pindar appear to
you to speak the truth, while they who have made it their concern to die for
the doctrine of Jesus, and who have left to their successors writings so
remarkable on the truths which they believed, entered for the sake of
“fictions” (as you consider them), and “myths,” and “juggleries,” upon a
struggle which entails a life of danger and a death of violence? Place
yourself, then, as a neutral party, between what is related of Aristeas and
what is recorded of Jesus, and see whether, from the result, and from the benefits
which have accrued from the reformation of morals, and to the worship of the
God who is over all things, it is not allowable to conclude that we must
believe the events recorded of Jesus not to have happened without the divine
intervention, but that this was not the case with the story of Aristeas the
Proconnesian. [Book 3 Chapter 27]
For with
what purpose in view did Providence accomplish the marvels related of Aristeas?
And to confer what benefit upon the human race did such remarkable events, as
you regard them, take place? You cannot answer. But we, when we relate the
events of the history of Jesus, have no ordinary defence to offer for their
occurrence;—this, viz., that God desired to commend the doctrine of Jesus as a
doctrine which was to save mankind, and which was based, indeed, upon the apostles
as foundations of the rising edifice of Christianity, but which increased in
magnitude also in the succeeding ages, in which not a few cures are wrought in
the name of Jesus, and certain other manifestations of no small moment have
taken place. Now what sort of person is Apollo, who enjoined the Metapontines
to treat Aristeas as a god? And with what object does he do this? And what
advantage was he procuring to the Metapontines from this divine worship, if
they were to regard him as a god, who a little ago was a mortal? And yet the
recommendations of Apollo (viewed by us as a demon who has obtained the honour
of libation and sacrificial odours) regarding this Aristeas appear to you to be
worthy of consideration; while those of the God of all things, and of His holy
angels, made known beforehand through the prophets—not after the birth of
Jesus, but before He appeared among men—do not stir you up to
admiration, not merely of the prophets who received the Divine Spirit, but of
Him also who was the object of their predictions, whose entrance into life was
so clearly predicted many years beforehand by numerous prophets, that the whole
Jewish people who were hanging in expectation of the coming of Him who was looked
for, did, after the advent of Jesus, fall into a keen dispute with each other;
and that a great multitude of them acknowledged Christ, and believed Him to be
the object of prophecy, while others did not believe in Him, but, despising the
meekness of those who, on account of the teaching of Jesus, were unwilling to cause
even the most trifling sedition, dared to inflict on Jesus those cruelties
which His disciples have so truthfully and candidly recorded, without secretly omitting
from their marvellous history of Him what seems to the multitude to bring
disgrace upon the doctrine of Christianity. But both Jesus Himself and His
disciples desired that His followers should believe not merely in His Godhead
and miracles, as if He had not also been a partaker of human nature, and had
assumed the human flesh which “lusteth against the Spirit;” but they saw also
that the power which had descended into human nature, and into the midst of
human miseries, and which had assumed a human soul and body, contributed
through faith, along with its divine elements, to the salvation of believers,
when they see that from Him there began the union of the divine with the human
nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be
divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who not only believe, but enter
upon the life which Jesus taught, and which elevates to friendship with God and
communion with Him every one who lives according to the precepts of Jesus.
[Book 3 Chapter 28]
For the
Church of God, e.g., which is at Athens, is a meek and stable body, as being
one which desires to please God, who is over all things; whereas the assembly
of the Athenians is given to sedition, and is not at all to be compared to the
Church of God in that city. And you may say the same thing of the Church of God
at Corinth, and of the assembly of the Corinthian people; and also of the
Church of God at Alexandria, and of the assembly of the people of Alexandria. And
if he who hears this be a candid man, and one who investigates things with a
desire to ascertain the truth, he will be filled with admiration of Him who not
only conceived the design, but also was able to secure in all places the
establishment of Churches of God alongside of the assemblies of the people in
each city. In like manner, also, in comparing the council of the Church of God with
the council in any city, you would find that certain councillors3528 of the
Church are worthy to rule in the city of God, if there be any such city in the
whole world; whereas the councillors in all other places exhibit in their
characters no quality worthy of the conventional superiority which they appear
to enjoy over their fellow-citizens. And so, too, you must compare the ruler
of the Church in each city with the ruler of the people of
the city, in order to observe that even amongst those councillors and rulers of
the Church of God who come very far short of their duty, and who lead more
indolent lives than others who are more energetic, it is nevertheless possible
to discover a general superiority in what relates to the progress of virtue over
the characters of the councilors and rulers in the various cities. [Book 3
Chapter 30]
But if it be
recorded that my Jesus was received up into glory, I perceive the divine arrangement
in such an act, viz., because God, who brought this to pass, commends in this way
the Teacher to those who witnessed it, in order that as men who are contending
not for human doctrine, but for divine teaching, they may devote themselves as
far as possible to the God who is over all, and may do all things in order to
please Him, as those who are to receive in the divine judgment the reward of
the good or evil which they have wrought in this life. [Book 3 Chapter 32]
For these
different tribes erected temples and statues to those individuals above
enumerated, whereas we have refrained from offering to the Divinity honour by
any such means (seeing they are adapted rather to demons, which are somehow
fixed in a certain place which they prefer to any other, or which take up their
dwelling, as it were, after being removed (from one place to another) by
certain rites and incantations), and are lost in reverential wonder at Jesus,
who has recalled our minds from all sensible things, as being not only
corruptible, but destined to corruption, and elevated them to honour the God
who is over all with prayers and a righteous life, which we offer to Him as
being intermediate between the nature of the uncreated and that of all created
things, and who bestows upon us the benefits which come from the Father, and
who as High Priest conveys our prayers to the supreme God. [Book 3 Chapter 34]
The
Egyptians, then, having been taught to worship Antinous, will, if you compare
him with Apollo or Zeus, endure such a comparison, Antinous being magnified in
their estimation through being classed with these deities; for Celsus is
clearly convicted of falsehood when he says, “that they will not endure his
being compared with Apollo or Zeus.” Whereas Christians (who have learned that
their eternal life consists in knowing the only true God, who is over all, and
Jesus Christ, whom He has sent; and who have learned also that all the gods of
the heathen are greedy demons, which flit around sacrifices and blood, and
other sacrificial accompaniments, in order to deceive those who have not taken
refuge with the God who is over all, but that the divine and holy angels of God
are of a different nature and will from all the demons on earth, and that they are
known to those exceedingly few persons who have carefully and intelligently
investigated these matters) will not endure a comparison to be made between
them and Apollo or Zeus, or any being worshipped with odour and blood and
sacrifices; some of them, so acting from their extreme simplicity, not being
able to give a reason for their conduct, but sincerely observing the precepts which
they have received; others, again, for reasons not to be lightly regarded, nay,
even of a profound description, and (as a Greek would say) drawn from the inner
nature of things; and amongst the latter of these God is a frequent subject of
conversation, and those who are honoured by God, through His only-begotten
Word, with participation in His divinity, and therefore also in His name. They
speak much, too, both regarding the angels of God and those who are opposed to the
truth, but have been deceived; and who, in consequence of being deceived, call
them gods or angels of God, or good demons, or heroes who have become such by
the transference into them of a good human soul. And such Christians will also
show, that as in philosophy there are many who appear to be in possession of
the truth, who have yet either deceived themselves by plausible arguments, or
by rashly assenting to what was brought forward and discovered by others; so
also, among those souls which exist apart from bodies, both angels and demons,
there are some which have been induced by plausible reasons to declare
themselves gods. And because it was impossible that the reasons of such things
could be discovered by men with perfect exactness, it was deemed safe that no
mortal should entrust himself to any being as to God, with the exception of
Jesus Christ, who is, as it were, the Ruler over all things, and who both
beheld these weighty secrets, and made them known to a few. [Book 3 Chapter 35]
The belief,
then, in Antinous, or any other such person, whether among the Egyptians or the
Greeks, is, so to speak, unfortunate; while the belief in Jesus would seem to
be either a fortunate one, or the result of thorough investigation, having the
appearance of the former to the multitude, and of the latter to exceedingly
few. And when I speak of a certain belief being, as the multitude would call
it, unfortunate, I in such a case refer the cause to God, who knows the reasons
of the various fates allotted to each one who enters human life. [Book 3
Chapter 8]
We must
notice the remarks which Celsus next makes, when he says to us, that “faith,
having taken possession of our minds, makes us yield the assent which we give
to the doctrine of Jesus;” for of a truth it is faith which does produce such
an assent. Observe, however, whether that faith does not of itself exhibit what
is worthy of praise, seeing we entrust ourselves to the God who is over all,
acknowledging our gratitude to Him who has led us to such a faith, and
declaring that He could not have attempted or accomplished such a result
without the divine assistance. And we have confidence also in the intentions of
the writers of the Gospels, observing their piety and conscientiousness,
manifested in their writings, which contain nothing that is spurious, or deceptive,
or false, or cunning; for it is evident to us that souls unacquainted with
those artifices which are taught by the cunning sophistry of the Greeks (which
is characterized by great plausibility and acuteness), and by the kind of rhetoric
in vogue in the courts of justice, would not have been able thus to invent
occurrences which are fitted of themselves to conduct to faith, and to a life
in keeping with faith. And I am of opinion that it was on this account that
Jesus wished to employ such persons as teachers of His doctrines, viz., that
there might be no ground for any suspicion of plausible sophistry, but that it
might clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding, that the
guileless purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked with great
simplicity, was deemed worthy of being accompanied by a diviner power, which
accomplished far more than it seemed possible could be accomplished by a
periphrasis of words, and a weaving of sentences, accompanied by all the
distinctions of Grecian art. [Book 3 Chapter 39]
But observe
whether the principles of our faith, harmonizing with the general ideas
implanted in our minds at birth, do not produce a change upon those who listen
candidly to its statements; for although a perverted view of things, with the
aid of much instruction to the same effect, has been able to implant in the
minds of the multitude the belief that images are gods, and that things made of
gold, and silver, and ivory, and stone are deserving of worship, yet common
sense forbids the supposition that God is at all a piece of corruptible matter,
or is honoured when made to assume by men a form embodied in dead matter,
fashioned according to some image or symbol of His appearance. And therefore we
say at once of images that they are not gods, and of such creations (of art)
that they are not to be compared with the Creator, but are small in contrast
with the God who is over all, and who created, and upholds, and governs the
universe. And the rational soul recognising, as it were, its relationship (to
the divine), at once rejects what it for a time supposed to be gods, and
resumes its natural love for its Creator; and because of its affection towards
Him, receives Him also who first presented these truths to all nations through
the disciples whom He had appointed, and whom He sent forth, furnished with
divine power and authority, to proclaim the doctrine regarding God and His
kingdom. [Book 3 Chapter 40]
Celsus,
then, does not speak as a good reasoner, when he compares the mortal flesh of
Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, asserting that the former is more liable
to corruption than the latter. For, to speak correctly, that which is
incorruptible is not more free from corruption than another thing which is
incorruptible, nor that which is corruptible more liable to corruption than
another corruptible thing. But, admitting that there are degrees of
corruptibility, we can say in answer, that if it is possible for the matter
which underlies all qualities to exchange some of them, how should it be
impossible for the flesh of Jesus also to exchange qualities, and to become
such as it was proper for a body to be which had its abode in the ether and the
regions above it, and possessing no longer the infirmities belonging to the flesh,
and those properties which Celsus terms “impurities,” and in so terming them,
speaks unlike a philosopher? For that which is properly impure, is so because
of its wickedness. Now the nature of body is not impure; for in so far as it is
bodily nature, it does not possess vice, which is the generative principle of
impurity. But, as he had a suspicion of the answer which we would return, he
says with respect to the change of the body of Jesus, “Well, after he has laid
aside these qualities, he will be a God:” (and if so), why not rather Æsculapius,
and Dionysus, and Hercules? To which we reply, “What great deed has Æsculapius,
or Dionysus, or Hercules wrought?” And what individuals will they be able to
point out as having been improved in character, and made better by their words
and lives, so that they may make good their claim to be gods? For let us peruse
the many narratives regarding them, and see whether they were free from
licentiousness or injustice, or folly, or cowardice. And if nothing of that kind
be found in them, the argument of Celsus might have force, which places the
forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus. But if it is certain that,
although some things are reported of them as reputable, they are recorded,
nevertheless, to have done innumerable things which are contrary to right
reason, how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men,
on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus? [“By means
of Origen the idea of a proper reasonable soul in Christ received a new
dogmatical importance. This point, which up to this time had been altogether
untouched with controversy with the Patripassians, was now for the first time
expressly brought forward in a synod held against Beryllus of Bostra, A.D. 244,
and the doctrine of a reasonable human soul in Christ settled as a doctrine of
the Church.”] [Book 3 Chapter 42]
After these
points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of Jesus, made by a
very few individuals who are considered Christians, not of the more
intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class, and asserts that
“the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has
been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed
evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed,
or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words,
acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly
show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean,
and the stupid, with women and children.” In reply to which, we say that, as
if, while Jesus teaches continence, and says, “Whosoever looketh upon a woman
to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart,” one
were to behold a few of those who are deemed to be Christians living
licentiously, he would most justly blame them for living contrary to the
teaching of Jesus, but would act most unreasonably if he were to charge the
Gospel with their censurable conduct; so, if he found nevertheless that the
doctrine of the Christians invites men to wisdom, the blame then must remain
with those who rest in their own ignorance, and who utter, not what Celsus relates
(for although some of them are simple and ignorant, they do not speak so
shamelessly as he alleges), but other things of much less serious import,
which, however, serve to turn aside men from the practice of wisdom. [Book 3
Chapter 44]
But that the
object of Christianity is that we should become wise, can be proved not only from
the ancient Jewish writings, which we also use, but especially from those which
were composed after the time of Jesus, and which are believed among the
Churches to be divine. [Book 3 Chapter 45]
But it is
probable that what is written by Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians,
as being addressed to Greeks who prided themselves greatly on their Grecian
wisdom, has moved some to believe that it was not the object of the Gospel to
win wise men. Now, let him who is of this opinion understand that the Gospel,
as censuring wicked men, says of them that they are wise not in things which
relate to the understanding, and which are unseen and eternal; but that in
busying themselves about things of sense alone, and regarding these as
all-important, they are wise men of the world: for as there are in existence a
multitude of opinions, some of them espousing the cause of matter and bodies,
and asserting that everything is corporeal which has a substantial existence,
and that besides these nothing else exists, whether it be called invisible or
incorporeal, it says also that these constitute the wisdom of the world, which
perishes and fades away, and belongs only to this age, while those opinions
which raise the soul from things here to the blessedness which is with God, and
to His kingdom, and which teach men to despise all sensible and visible things
as existing only for a season, and to hasten on to things invisible, and to
have regard to those things which are not seen,—these, it says, constitute the
wisdom of God. But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of certain wise men among
the Greeks, when their statements are true, that “although they knew God, they glorified
Him not as God, neither were thankful.” And he bears witness that they knew
God, and says, too, that this did not happen to them without divine permission,
in these words: “For God showed it unto them;” dimly alluding, I think, to
those who ascend from things of sense to those of the understanding, when he
adds, “For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they
knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.” [Book 3
Chapter 47]
And perhaps
also from the words, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise
men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath
chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and the base
things, and the things which are despised, hath God chosen, and things which
are not, to bring to nought things that are, that no flesh may glory in His
presence;” some have been led to suppose that no one who is instructed, or wise,
or prudent, embraces the Gospel. Now, in answer to such an one, we would say
that it has not been stated that “no wise man according to the flesh,”
but that “not many wise men according to the flesh,” are called. It is
manifest, further, that amongst the characteristic qualifications of those who are
termed “bishops,” Paul, in describing what kind of man the bishop ought to be,
lays down as a qualification that he should also be a teacher, saying that he
ought to be able to convince the gainsayers, that by the wisdom which is in him
he may stop the mouths of foolish talkers and deceivers. And as he selects for
the episcopate a man who has been once married rather than he who has twice
entered the married state, and a man of blameless life rather than one who is liable
to censure, and a sober man rather than one who is not such, and a prudent man
rather than one who is not prudent, and a man whose behaviour is decorous
rather than he who is open to the charge even of the slightest indecorum, so he
desires that he who is to be chosen by preference for the office of a bishop
should be apt to teach, and able to convince the gainsayers. How then can Celsus
justly charge us with saying, “Let no one come to us who is ‘instructed,’ or
‘wise,’ or ‘prudent?’” Nay, let him who wills come to us “instructed,” and
“wise,” and “prudent;” and none the less, if any one be ignorant and
unintelligent, and uninstructed and foolish, let him also come: for it is these
whom the Gospel promises to cure, when they come, by rendering them all worthy of
God. [Book 3 Chapter 48]
This
statement also is untrue, that it is “only foolish and low individuals, and
persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the
teachers of the divine word wish to make converts.” Such indeed does the Gospel
invite, in order to make them better; but it invites also others who are very
different from these, since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of
them that believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and “He is the
propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for
the sins of the whole world.” After this it is superfluous for us to wish to
offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the following: “For why is it an
evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have
both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to
the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by
which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” Truly it is no evil to
have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those
amongst the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the
wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not admit
that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what shall we call
the best, save those which are true, and which incite men to virtue? Moreover,
it is an excellent thing for a man to be wise, but not to seem so,
as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the knowledge of God, but an
assistance, to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and
to be wise. And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it
be shown that he is an Epicurean. [Book 3 Chapter 49]
But let us
see what those statements of his are which follow next in these words: “Nay, we
see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in the market-places perform the
most disgraceful tricks, and who gather crowds around them, would never approach
an assembly of wise men, nor dare to exhibit their arts among them; but
wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of
unintelligent persons, thither they thrust themselves in, and show themselves
off.” Observe, now, how he slanders us in these words, comparing us to those
who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather
crowds around them! What disreputable tricks, pray, do we perform? Or what is
there in our conduct that resembles theirs, seeing that by means of
readings, and explanations of the things read, we lead men to the worship of
the God of the universe, and to the cognate virtues, and turn them away from
contemning Deity, and from all things contrary to right reason? Philosophers
verily would wish to collect together such hearers of their discourses as
exhort men to virtue,—a practice which certain of the Cynics especially have
followed, who converse publicly with those whom they happen to meet. Will they
maintain, then, that these who do not gather together persons who are
considered to have been educated, but who invite and assemble hearers from the
public street, resemble those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable
tricks, and gather crowds around them? Neither Celsus, however, nor any one who
holds the same opinions, will blame those who, agreeably to what they regard as
a feeling of philanthropy, address their arguments to the ignorant populace.
[Book 3 Chapter 50]
And if they
are not to be blamed for so doing, let us see whether Christians do not exhort multitudes
to the practice of virtue in a greater and better degree than they. For the philosophers
who converse in public do not pick and choose their hearers, but he who likes
stands and listens. The Christians, however, having previously, so far as
possible, tested the souls of those who wish to become their hearers, and
having previously instructed them in private, when they appear (before entering
the community) to have sufficiently evinced their desire towards a virtuous
life, introduce them then, and not before, privately forming one class of those
who are beginners, and are receiving admission, but who have not yet obtained
the mark of complete purification; and another of those who have manifested to
the best of their ability their intention to desire no other things than are
approved by Christians; and among these there are certain persons appointed to make
inquiries regarding the lives and behaviour of those who join them, in order
that they may prevent those who commit acts of infamy from coming into their
public assembly, while those of a different character they receive with their
whole heart, in order that they may daily make them better. And this is their
method of procedure, both with those who are sinners, and especially with those
who lead dissolute lives, whom they exclude from their community, although,
according to Celsus, they resemble those who in the market-places perform the
most shameful tricks. Now the venerable school of the Pythagoreans used to
erect a cenotaph to those who had apostatized from their system of philosophy,
treating them as dead; but the Christians lament as dead those who have been
vanquished by licentiousness or any other sin, because they are lost and dead
to God, and as being risen from the dead (if they manifest a becoming change)
they receive them afterwards, at some future time, after a greater interval
than in the case of those who were admitted at first, but not placing in any
office or post of rank in the Church of God those who, after professing the
Gospel, lapsed and fell. [Book 3 Chapter 51]
Observe now
with regard to the following statement of Celsus, “We see also those persons
who in the market-places perform most disreputable tricks, and collect crowds
around them,” whether a manifest falsehood has not been uttered, and things
compared which have no resemblance. He says that these individuals, to whom he
compares us, who “perform the most disreputable tricks in the market-places and
collect crowds, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to show
off their tricks before them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of
slaves, and a gathering of foolish people, thither do they thrust themselves in
and make a display.” Now, in speaking thus he does nothing else than simply
load us with abuse, like the women upon the public streets, whose object is to
slander one another; for we do everything in our power to secure that our
meetings should be composed of wise men, and those things among us which are
especially excellent and divine we then venture to bring forward publicly in
our discussions when we have an abundance of intelligent hearers, while we
conceal and pass by in silence the truths of deeper import when we see that our
audience is composed of simpler minds, which need such instruction as is
figuratively termed “milk.” [Book 3 Chapter 52]
We
acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so, that we do desire
to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give to young men the
exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to show to slaves how they may
recover freedom of thought, and be ennobled by the word. And those amongst us
who are the ambassadors of Christianity sufficiently declare that they are
debtors to Greeks and Barbarians, to wise men and fools, (for they do not deny
their obligation to cure the souls even of foolish persons,) in order that as
far as possible they may lay aside their ignorance, and endeavour to obtain
greater prudence, by listening also to the words of Solomon: “Oh, ye fools, be
of an understanding heart,” and “Who is the most simple among you, let him turn
unto me;” and wisdom exhorts those who are devoid of understanding in the
words, “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mixed for
you. Forsake folly that ye may live, and correct understanding in knowledge.”
This too would I say (seeing it bears on the point), in answer to the statement
of Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? And do they
not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? and do they not
desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then, with philosophers
who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue? with Pythagoras for having
so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and with those who recently
encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy? Is it indeed permissible for
you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves and foolish persons to the study of philosophy,
but if we do so, we do not act from philanthropic motives in wishing to
heal every rational nature with the medicine of reason, and to bring them into
fellowship with God, the Creator of all things? These remarks, then, may
suffice in answer to what are slanders rather than accusations on the part of
Celsus. [Book 3 Chapter 54]
But who are
the teachers whom we call triflers and fools, whose defence is undertaken by Celsus,
as of those who teach better things? (I know not,) unless he deem those to be
good instructors of women, and no triflers, who invite them to superstition and
to unchaste spectacles, and those, moreover, to be teachers not devoid of sense
who lead and drag the young men to all those disorderly acts which we know are
often committed by them. We indeed call away these also, as far as we can, from
the dogmas of philosophy to our worship of God, by showing forth its excellence
and purity. But as Celsus, by his statements, has declared that we do not do
so, but that we call only the foolish, I would say to him, “If you had charged
us with withdrawing from the study of philosophy those who were already
preoccupied with it, you would not have spoken the truth, and yet your charge
would have had an appearance of probability; but when you now say that we draw away
our adherents from good teachers, show who are those other teachers save the
teachers of philosophy, or those who have been appointed to give instruction in
some useful branch of study.” He will be unable, however, to show any such;
while we promise, openly and not in secret, that they will be happy who
live according to the word of God, and who look to Him in all things, and who
do everything, whatever it is, as if in the presence of God. Are these the
instructions of workers in wool, and of leather-cutters, and fullers, and
uneducated rustics? But such an assertion he cannot make good. [Book 3 Chapter
57]
But those
who, in the opinion of Celsus, resemble the workers in wool in private houses,
and the leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated rustics, will, he alleges,
in the presence of father or teachers be unwilling to speak, or unable to
explain to the boys anything that is good. In answer to which, we would say,
What kind of father, my good sir, and what kind of teacher, do you mean? If you
mean one who approves of virtue, and turns away from vice, and welcomes what is
better, then know, that with the greatest boldness will we declare our opinions
to the children, because we will be in good repute with such a judge. But if,
in the presence of a father who has a hatred of virtue and goodness, we keep
silence, and also before those who teach what is contrary to sound doctrine, do
not blame us for so doing, since you will blame us without good reason. You, at
all events, in a case where fathers deemed the mysteries of philosophy an idle
and unprofitable occupation for their sons, and for young men in general, would
not, in teaching philosophy, make known its secrets before worthless parents;
but, desiring to keep apart those sons of wicked parents who had been turned
towards the study of philosophy, you would observe the proper seasons, in order
that the doctrines of philosophy might reach the minds of the young men. And we
say the same regarding our teachers. For if we turn (our hearers) away from
those instructors who teach obscene comedies and licentious iambics, and many
other things which neither improve the speaker nor benefit the hearers (because
the latter do not know how to listen to poetry in a philosophic frame of mind,
nor the former how to say to each of the young men what tends to his profit),
we are not, in following such a course, ashamed to confess what we do. But if
you will show me teachers who train young men for philosophy, and who exercise
them in it, I will not from such turn away young men, but will try to raise
them, as those who have been previously exercised in the whole circle of
learning and in philosophical subjects, to the venerable and lofty height of eloquence
which lies hid from the multitude of Christians, where are discussed topics of
the greatest importance, and where it is demonstrated and shown that they have
been treated philosophically both by the prophets of God and the apostles of
Jesus. [Book 3 Chapter 58]
Immediately
after this, Celsus, perceiving that he has slandered us with too great
bitterness, as if by way of defence expresses himself as follows: “That I bring
no heavier charge than what the truth compels me, any one may see from the
following remarks. Those who invite to participation in other mysteries, make
proclamation as follows: ‘Every one who has clean hands, and a prudent tongue;
others again thus: ‘He who is pure from all pollution, and whose soul is
conscious of no evil, and who has lived well and justly.’ Such is the
proclamation made by those who promise purification from sins. But let us hear
what kind of persons these Christians invite. Every one, they say, who is a
sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak
generally, whoever is unfortunate, him will the kingdom of God receive. Do you
not call him a sinner, then, who is unjust, and a thief, and a housebreaker,
and a poisoner, and a committer of sacrilege, and a robber of the dead? What
others would a man invite if he were issuing a proclamation for an assembly of
robbers?” Now, in answer to such statements, we say that it is not the same
thing to invite those who are sick in soul to be cured, and those
who are in health to the knowledge and study of divine things.
We, however, keeping both these things in view, at first invite all men to be
healed, and exhort those who are sinners to come to the consideration of the
doctrines which teach men not to sin, and those who are devoid of understanding
to those which beget wisdom, and those who are children to rise in their
thoughts to manhood, and those who are simply unfortunate to good fortune,
or—which is the more appropriate term to use—to blessedness. And when those who
have been turned towards virtue have made progress, and have shown that they
have been purified by the word, and have led as far as they can a better life,
then and not before do we invite them to participation in our mysteries. “For
we speak wisdom among them that are perfect.” [Book 3 Chapter 59]
And as we
teach, moreover, that “wisdom will not enter into the soul of a base man, nor
dwell in a body that is involved in sin,” we say, Whoever has clean hands, and
therefore lifts up holy hands to God, and by reason of being occupied with
elevated and heavenly things, can say, “The lifting up of my hands is as the
evening sacrifice,” let him come to us; and whoever has a wise tongue through
meditating on the law of the Lord day and night, and by “reason of habit has
his senses exercised to discern between good and evil,” let him have no
reluctance in coming to the strong and rational sustenance which is adapted to
those who are athletes in piety and every virtue. And since the grace of God is
with all those who love with a pure affection the teacher of the doctrines of
immortality, whoever is pure not only from all defilement, but from what are
regarded as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the mysteries
of Jesus, which properly are made known only to the holy and the pure. The
initiated of Celsus accordingly says, “Let him whose soul is conscious of no
evil come.” But he who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus,
will say to those who have been purified in heart, “He whose soul has, for a
long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself
to the healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were spoken
in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples.” Therefore in the comparison
which he institutes between the procedure of the initiators into the Grecian
mysteries, and the teachers of the doctrine of Jesus, he does not know the
difference between inviting the wicked to be healed, and initiating those
already purified into the sacred mysteries! [Book 3 Chapter 60]
Not to participation
in mysteries, then, and to fellowship in the wisdom hidden in a mystery,
which God ordained before the world to the glory of His saints, do we invite
the wicked man, and the thief, and the housebreaker, and
the poisoner, and the committer of sacrilege, and the plunderer
of the dead, and all those others whom Celsus may enumerate in his
exaggerating style, but such as these we invite to be healed. For there
are in the divinity of the word some helps towards the cure of those who are
sick, respecting which the word says, “They that be whole need not a physician,
but they that are sick;” others, again, which to the pure in soul and body
exhibit “the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world
began, but now is made manifest by the Scriptures of the prophets,” and “by the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which “appearing” is manifested to each
one of those who are perfect, and which enlightens the reason in the true
knowledge of things. But as he exaggerates the charges against us, adding,
after his list of those vile individuals whom he has mentioned, this remark,
“What other persons would a robber summon to himself by proclamation?” we
answer such a question by saying that a robber summons around him individuals
of such a character, in order to make use of their villainy against the men
whom they desire to slay and plunder. A Christian, on the other hand, even
though he invite those whom the robber invites, invites them to a very
different vocation, viz., to bind up these wounds by His word, and to apply to
the soul, festering amid evils, the drugs obtained from the word, and which are
analogous to the wine and oil, and plasters, and other healing appliances which
belong to the art of medicine. [Book 3 Chapter 61]
In the next
place, throwing a slur upon the exhortations spoken and written to those who have
led wicked lives, and which invite them to repentance and reformation of heart,
he asserts that we say “that it was to sinners that God has been sent.” Now
this statement of his is much the same as if he were to find fault with certain
persons for saying that on account of the sick who were living in a city, a
physician had been sent them by a very benevolent monarch. God the Word was
sent, indeed, as a physician to sinners, but as a teacher of divine mysteries
to those who are already pure and who sin no more. But Celsus, unable to see
this distinction,—for he had no desire to be animated with a love of
truth,—remarks, “Why was he not sent to those who were without sin? What evil
is it not to have committed sin?” To which we reply, that if by those “who were
without sin” he means those who sin no more, then our Saviour Jesus was sent
even to such, but not as a physician. While if by those “who were without sin”
he means such as have never at any time sinned,—for he made no distinction in
his statement,—we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin.
And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus,
who “did no sin.” It is with a malicious intent, indeed, that Celsus says of us
that we assert that “God will receive the unrighteousness man if he humble
himself on account of his wickedness, but that He will not receive the
righteous man, although he look up to Him, (adorned) with virtue from the
beginning.” Now we assert that it is impossible for a man to look up to God (adorned)
with virtue from the beginning. For wickedness must necessarily first exist in
men. As Paul also says, “When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”
Moreover, we do not teach regarding the unrighteous man, that it is sufficient
for him to humble himself on account of his wickedness in order to his being
accepted by God, but that God will accept him if, after passing condemnation
upon himself for his past conduct, he walk humbly on account of it, and in a
becoming manner for the time to come. [Book 3 Chapter 62]
After this,
not understanding how it has been said that “every one who exalted himself
shall be abased;” nor (although taught even by Plato) that “the good and
virtuous man walketh humbly and orderly;” and ignorant, moreover, that we give
the injunction, “Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God,
that He may exalt you in due time;” he says that “those persons who preside
properly over a trial make those individuals who bewail before them their evil
deeds to cease from their piteous wailings, lest their decisions should be
determined rather by compassion than by a regard to truth; whereas God does not
decide in accordance with truth, but in accordance with flattery.” Now, what
words of flattery and piteous wailing are contained in the Holy Scriptures when
the sinner says in his prayers to God, “I have acknowledged my sin, and mine iniquity
have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgression to the Lord,” etc.,
etc.? For is he able to show that a procedure of this kind is not adapted to
the conversion of sinners, who humble themselves in their prayers under the
hand of God? And, becoming confused by his efforts to accuse us, he contradicts
himself; appearing at one time to know a man “without sin,” and “a righteous
man, who can look up to God (adorned) with virtue from the beginning;” and at
another time accepting our statement that there is no man altogether righteous,
or without sin; for, as if he admitted its truth, he remarks, “This is indeed
apparently true, that somehow the human race is naturally inclined to sin.” In
the next place, as if all men were not invited by the word, he says, “All men,
then, without distinction, ought to be invited, since all indeed are sinners.”
And yet, in the preceding pages, we have pointed out the words of Jesus: “Come
unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest.” All men, therefore, labouring and being heavy laden on account of
the nature of sin, are invited to the rest spoken of in the word of God, “for
God sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from their
destructions.” [Book 3 Chapter 63]
But since he
says, in addition to this, “What is this preference of sinners over others?”
and makes other remarks of a similar nature, we have to reply that absolutely a
sinner is not preferred before one who is not a sinner; but that sometimes a
sinner, who has become conscious of his own sin, and for that reason comes to
repentance, being humbled on account of his sins, is preferred before one who
is accounted a lesser sinner, but who does not consider himself one, but exalts
himself on the ground of certain good qualities which he thinks he possesses,
and is greatly elated on their account. And this is manifest to those who are
willing to peruse the Gospels in a spirit of fairness, by the parable of the
publican, who said, “Be merciful to me a sinner,” and of the Pharisee who
boasted with a certain wicked self-conceit in the words, “I thank Thee that I
am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican.” For Jesus subjoins to his narrative of them both the words: “This
man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that
exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be
exalted.” We utter no blasphemy, then, against God, neither are we guilty of
falsehood, when we teach that every man, whoever he may be, is conscious of
human infirmity in comparison with the greatness of God, and that we must ever
ask from Him, who alone is able to supply our deficiencies, what is wanting to
our (mortal) nature. [Book 3 Chapter 64]
Now here
Celsus appears to me to have committed a great error, in refusing to those who
are sinners by nature, and also by habit, the possibility of a complete
transformation, alleging that they cannot be cured even by punishment. For it
clearly appears that all men are inclined to sin by nature, and some not only
by nature but by practice, while not all men are incapable of an entire transformation.
For there are found in every philosophical sect, and in the word of God,
persons who are related to have undergone so great a change that they may be
proposed as a model of excellence of life. Among the names of the heroic age
some mention Hercules and Ulysses, among those of later times, Socrates, and of
those who have lived very recently, Musonius. Not only against us, then, did
Celsus utter the calumny, when he said that “it was manifest to every one that those
who were given to sin by nature and habit could not by any means—even by
punishments—be completely changed for the better,” but also against the noblest
names in philosophy, who have not denied that the recovery of virtue was a
possible thing for men. But although he did not express his meaning with
exactness, we shall nevertheless, though giving his words a more favourable construction,
convict him of unsound reasoning. For his words were: “Those who are inclined
to sin by nature and habit, no one could completely reform even by
chastisement;” and his words, as we understood them, we refuted to the best of
our ability. [Book 3 Chapter 66]
That
philosophical discourses, however, distinguished by orderly arrangement and
elegant expression, should produce such results in the case of those
individuals just enumerated, and upon others who have led wicked lives, is not
at all to be wondered at. But when we consider that those discourses, which
Celsus terms “vulgar,” are filled with power, as if they were spells, and see
that they at once convert multitudes from a life of licentiousness to one of
extreme regularity, and from a life of wickedness to a better, and from a state
of cowardice or unmanliness to one of such high-toned courage as to lead men to
despise even death through the piety which shows itself within them, why should
we not justly admire the power which they contain? For the words of those who
at the first assumed the office of (Christian) ambassadors, and who gave their labours
to rear up the Churches of God,—nay, their preaching also,—were accompanied
with a persuasive power, though not like that found among those who profess the
philosophy of Plato, or of any other merely human philosopher, which possesses
no other qualities than those of human nature. But the demonstration which
followed the words of the apostles of Jesus was given from God, and was
accredited by the Spirit and by power. And therefore their word ran
swiftly and speedily, or rather the word of God through their
instrumentality, transformed numbers of persons who had been sinners both by
nature and habit, whom no one could have reformed by punishment, but who were
changed by the word, which moulded and transformed them according to its
pleasure. [Book 3 Chapter 68]
Celsus
continues in his usual manner, asserting that “to change a nature entirely is
exceedingly difficult.” We, however, who know of only one nature in every
rational soul, and who maintain that none has been created evil by the Author
of all things, but that many have become wicked through education, and
perverse example, and surrounding influences, so that wickedness has been
naturalized in some individuals, are persuaded that for the word of God to
change a nature in which evil has been naturalized is not only not impossible,
but is even a work of no very great difficulty, if a man only believe that he
must entrust himself to the God of all things, and do everything with a view to
please Him with whom it cannot be that “Both good and bad are in the same
honour, Or that the idle man and he who laboured much Perish alike.”
But even if
it be exceedingly difficult to effect a change in some persons, the cause must
be held to lie in their own will, which is reluctant to accept the belief that
the God over all things is a just Judge of all the deeds done during life. For
deliberate choice and practice avail much towards the accomplishment of things
which appear to be very difficult, and, to speak hyperbolically, almost impossible.
Has the nature of man, when desiring to walk along a rope extended in the air
through the middle of the theatre, and to carry at the same time numerous and
heavy weights, been able by practice and attention to accomplish such a feat;
but when desiring to live in conformity with the practice of virtue, does it
find it impossible to do so, although formerly it may have been exceedingly wicked?
See whether he who holds such views does not bring a charge against the nature
of the Creator of the rational animal rather than against the creature, if He
has formed the nature of man with powers for the attainment of things of such difficulty,
and of no utility whatever, but has rendered it incapable of securing its own
blessedness. But these remarks may suffice as an answer to the assertion that
“entirely to change a nature is exceedingly difficult.” He alleges, in the next
place, that “they who are without sin are partakers of a better life;” not
making it clear what he means by “those who are without sin,” whether those who
are so from the beginning (of their lives), or those who become so by a
transformation. Of those who were so from the beginning of their lives, there
cannot possibly be any; while those who are so after a transformation (of
heart) are found to be few in number, being those who have become so after
giving in their allegiance to the saving word. And they were not such when they
gave in their allegiance. For, apart from the aid of the word, and that too the
word of perfection, it is impossible for a man to become free from sin. [Book 3
Chapter 69]
In the next
place, he objects to the statement, as if it were maintained by us, that “God
will be able to do all things,” not seeing even here how these words are meant,
and what “the all things” are which are included in it, and how it is
said that God “will be able.” But on these matters it is not necessary now to
speak; for although he might with a show of reason have opposed this proposition,
he has not done so. Perhaps he did not understand the arguments which might be plausibly
used against it, or if he did, he saw the answers that might be returned. Now
in our judgment God can do everything which it is possible for Him to do
without ceasing to be God, and good, and wise. But Celsus asserts—not
comprehending the meaning of the expression “God can do all things”—“that He
will not desire to do anything wicked,” admitting that He has the power,
but not the will, to commit evil. We, on the contrary, maintain that as
that which by nature possesses the property of sweetening other things through
its own inherent sweetness cannot produce bitterness contrary to its own
peculiar nature, nor that whose nature it is to produce light through its being
light can cause darkness; so neither is God able to commit wickedness, for the
power of doing evil is contrary to His deity and its omnipotence. Whereas if
any one among existing things is able to commit wickedness from being inclined
to wickedness by nature, it does so from not having in its nature the ability
not to do evil. [Book 3 Chapter 70]
He next
assumes what is not granted by the more rational class of believers, but what perhaps
is considered to be true by some who are devoid of intelligence,—viz., that
“God, like those who are overcome with pity, being Himself overcome, alleviates
the sufferings of the wicked through pity for their wailings, and casts off the
good, who do nothing of that kind, which is the height of injustice.” Now, in
our judgment, God lightens the suffering of no wicked man who has not betaken himself
to a virtuous life, and casts off no one who is already good, nor yet
alleviates the suffering of any one who mourns, simply because he utters
lamentation, or takes pity upon him, to use the word pity in its more common
acceptation. But those who have passed severe condemnation upon themselves
because of their sins, and who, as on that account, lament and bewail
themselves as lost, so far as their previous conduct is concerned, and who have
manifested a satisfactory change, are received by God on account of their
repentance, as those who have undergone a transformation from a life of great
wickedness. For virtue, taking up her abode in the souls of these persons, and expelling
the wickedness which had previous possession of them, produces an oblivion of
the past. And even although virtue do not effect an entrance, yet if a
considerable progress take place in the soul, even that is sufficient, in the
proportion that it is progressive, to drive out and destroy the flood of
wickedness, so that it almost ceases to remain in the soul. [Book 3 Chapter 71]
In the next
place, speaking as in the person of a teacher of our doctrine, he expresses
himself as follows: “Wise men reject what we say, being led into error, and
ensnared by their wisdom.” In reply to which we say that, since wisdom is the
knowledge of divine and human things and of their causes, or, as it is defined
by the word of God, “the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence
flowing from the glory of the Almighty; and the brightness of the everlasting
light, and the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His
goodness,” no one who was really wise would reject what is said by a Christian
acquainted with the principles of Christianity, or would be led into error, or
ensnared by it. For true wisdom does not mislead, but ignorance does, while of
existing things knowledge alone is permanent, and the truth which is derived
from wisdom. But if, contrary to the definition of wisdom, you call any one
whatever who dogmatizes with sophistical opinions wise, we answer that in
conformity with what you call wisdom, such an one rejects the words of
God, being misled and ensnared by plausible sophisms. And since, according to
our doctrine, wisdom is not the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of evil,
so to speak, is in those who hold false opinions and who are deceived by them,
I would therefore in such persons term it ignorance rather than wisdom. [Book 3
Chapter 72]
He next
likens our teacher to one suffering from ophthalmia, and his disciples to those
suffering from the same disease, and says that “such an one amongst a company
of those who are afflicted with ophthalmia, accuses those who are sharp-sighted
of being blind.” Who, then, would we ask, O Greeks, are they who in our
judgment do not see, save those who are unable to look up from the exceeding
greatness of the world and its contents, and from the beauty of created things,
and to see that they ought to worship, and admire, and reverence Him alone who
made these things, and that it is not befitting to treat with reverence
anything contrived by man, and applied to the honour of God, whether it be
without a reference to the Creator, or with one? For, to compare with that illimitable
excellence, which surpasses all created being, things which ought not to be
brought into comparison with it, is the act of those whose understanding is
darkened. We do not then say that those who are sharp-sighted are suffering
from ophthalmia or blindness; but we assert that those who, in ignorance of
God, give themselves to temples and images, and so-called sacred seasons,are
blinded in their minds, and especially when, in addition to their impiety, they
live also in licentiousness, not even inquiring after any honourable work
whatever, but doing everything that is of a disgraceful character. [Book 3
Chapter 77]
After having
brought against us charges of so serious a kind, he wishes to make it appear
that, although he has others to adduce, he passes them by in silence. His words
are as follows: “These charges I have to bring against them, and others of a
similar nature, not to enumerate them one by one, and I affirm that they are in
error, and that they act insolently towards God, in order to lead on wicked men
by empty hopes, and to persuade them to despise better things, saying that if
they refrain from them it will be better for them.” In answer to which, it
might be said that from the power which shows itself in those who are converted
to Christianity, it is not at all the “wicked” who are won over to the Gospel,
as the more simple class of persons, and, as many would term them, the
“unpolished.” For such individuals, through fear of the punishments that are
threatened, which arouses and exhorts them to refrain from those actions which
are followed by punishments, strive to yield themselves up to the Christian
religion, being influenced by the power of the word to such a degree, that
through fear of what are called in the word “everlasting punishments,” they despise
all the tortures which are devised against them among men,—even death itself,
with countless other evils,—which no wise man would say is the act of persons
of wicked mind. How can temperance and sober-mindedness, or benevolence and
liberality, be practised by a man of wicked mind? Nay, even the fear of God
cannot be felt by such an one, with respect to which, because it is useful to
the many, the Gospel encourages those who are not yet able to choose that which
ought to be chosen for its own sake, to select it as the greatest blessing, and
one above all promise; for this principle cannot be implanted in him who
prefers to live in wickedness. [Book 3 Chapter 78]
But if in
these matters any one were to imagine that it is superstition rather than
wickedness which appears in the multitude of those who believe the word, and
should charge our doctrine with making men superstitious, we shall answer him
by saying that, as a certain legislator replied to the question of one who
asked him whether he had enacted for his citizens the best laws, that he had
not given them absolutely the best, but the best which they were capable of
receiving; so it might be said by the Father of the Christian doctrine, I have
given the best laws and instruction for the improvement of morals of which the
many were capable, not threatening sinners with imaginary labours and
chastisements, but with such as are real, and necessary to be applied for the
correction of those who offer resistance, although they do not at all
understand the object of him who inflicts the punishment, nor the effect of the
labours. For the doctrine of punishment is both attended with utility, and is
agreeable to truth, and is stated in obscure terms with advantage. Moreover, as
for the most part it is not the wicked whom the ambassadors of Christianity
gain over, neither do we insult God. For we speak regarding Him both what is
true, and what appears to be clear to the multitude, but not so clear to them
as it is to those few who investigate the truths of the Gospel in a
philosophical manner. [Book 3 Chapter 79]
And do not
suppose that it is not in keeping with the Christian religion for me to have
accepted, against Celsus, the opinions of those philosophers who have treated
of the immortality or after-duration of the soul; for, holding certain views in
common with them, we shall more conveniently establish our position, that the
future life of blessedness shall be for those only who have accepted the
religion which is according to Jesus, and that devotion towards the Creator of all
things which is pure and sincere, and unmingled with any created thing
whatever. And let him who likes show what “better things” we persuade men to
despise, and let him compare the blessed end with God in Christ,—that is, the
word, and the wisdom, and all virtue;—which, according to our view, shall be
bestowed, by the gift of God, on those who have lived a pure and blameless
life, and who have felt a single and undivided love for the God of all things,
with that end which is to follow according to the teaching of each philosophic
sect, whether it be Greek or Barbarian, or according to the professions of
religious mysteries; and let him prove that the end which is predicted by any
of the others is superior to that which we promise, and consequently that that
is true, and ours not befitting the gift of God, nor those who have lived a
good life; or let him prove that these words were not spoken by the divine
Spirit, who filled the souls of the holy prophets. And let him who likes show
that those words which are acknowledged among all men to be human, are superior
to those which are proved to be divine, and uttered by inspiration. And what
are the “better” things from which we teach those who receive them that it
would be better to abstain? For if it be not arrogant so to speak, it is
self-evident that nothing can be denied which is better than to entrust oneself
to the God of all, and yield oneself up to the doctrine which raises us above all
created things, and brings us, through the animate and living word—which is
also living wisdom and the Son of God—to God who is over all. However, as the
third book of our answers to the treatise of Celsus has extended to a
sufficient length, we shall here bring our present remarks to a close, and in
what is to follow shall meet what Celsus has subsequently written. [Book 3
Chapter 81]
No comments:
Post a Comment
“Reason dictates that persons who are truly noble and who love wisdom will honor and love only what is true. They will refuse to follow traditional viewpoints if those viewpoints are worthless...Instead, a person who genuinely loves truth must choose to do and speak what is true, even if he is threatened with death...I have not come to flatter you by this written petition, nor to impress you by my words. I have come to simply beg that you do not pass judgment until you have made an accurate and thorough investigation. Your investigation must be free of prejudice, hearsay, and any desire to please the superstitious crowds. As for us, we are convinced that you can inflict no lasting evil on us. We can only do it to ourselves by proving to be wicked people. You can kill us—but you cannot harm us.” From Justin Martyr's first apology 150 A.D. Martyred A.D. 160