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.”?
CHAPTER XII.
Whether, then, there are cycles of time, and floods, or con- flagrations which occur periodically or not, and whether the Scripture is aware of this, not only in many passages, but especially where Solomon says, “ What is the thing which l οὐκ éxtorn. 2 δίκην βασανιστοῦ sip Φέρων.
172 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book 1v.
hath been? Even that which shall be. And what is the thing which hath been done? Even that which shall be done,”? 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] conflagra- tion of the world; but, on the contrary (if we must attend to . the matter of time’), 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? 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 prevalenceof wickedness,* 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," 5 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 espe- cially those of the wicked. And as custom leads men to say that teachers ** condescend " * to children, and wise men to those youths who have just betaken themselves to philosophy, not by ἐς 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."
CHAPTER 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’ of the defence which disposes of the ridicule of Celsus against us, and then we shall turn to what follows. "The divine 1 Cf, Eccles. i. 9.? el χρὴ ἐπιστήσαντα Toi; χρόνοις εἰ εἶν.
$ ἀνέπλασαν xard περιόδου; ταυτίτητα;, καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτους τοῖς ἰδίοι; “οἱοὶς καὶ τοῖς συῤιβεβηκέσιν αὐτοῖς.
4 κακίαν ἐπὶ πλεῖον xsoptyny. 5 Cf. Jer. xiii 24.
6 συγκαταβαινεῖν. T γεῦσαι.
Boox 1v.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 173 word says that our God is “a consuming fire,”? and that * He draws rivers of fire before Him;"? nay, that He even entereth in as “a refiner's fire, and as a fuller's herb,"? 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 con- sumed by God. And we assert that they are wickedness, and the works which result from it, and which, being figuratively called “ wood, hay, stubble,"* 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.” ΤΕ, then, any one can show that these words were differently under- stood by the writer, and can prove that the wicked man literally? 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 itis. 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.^ 5 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 wicked- ness, and to free it from the other impure materials, which adulterate the natural gold or silver, so to speak, of the soul.’ And, in like manner, * rivers of fire" are said to be before God, who will thoroughly cleanse away the evil which is inter- mingled throughout the whole soul. 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.”
1 Cf. Deut. iv. 24, ix. 3.? Cf. Dan. vii. 10. 3 Cf. Mal. iii. 2.
7 τὴν τοῦ χρυσοῦ (iv οὕτω; dvopacw), Queis τῆς ψυχῆς, "» τὴν ὠργύρου, δολωσάντων».
174 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book rv.
CHAPTER XIV.
But let us look at what Celsus next with great ostentation announces in the following fashion: “ And again,” he says, *]et 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. 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 re- main 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"? 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.’ We show, accordingly, that the Holy Scrip- tures represent God as unchangeable, both by such words as “Thou art the same,"* and “I change not;" 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? when the conflagration [of the world] takes place; and at another, when a rearrangement of things occurs, he again be- comes partly material! For even the Stoics were unable dis- 1 Θεὸς ὠγαθός ἐστι, καὶ καλὸς, xal εὐδαίμων, καὶ ἐν τῷ καλλίστῳ καὶ ἐρίστῳ.
2 χατάβασιν. 8 τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ. * Ps. cii. 27.
5 Mal. iii. 6. 6 ἡγεμονικὸν.
7 The reading in the text is, ἐπὶ μέρους γίνεται αὐτῆς, which is thus cor- rected by Guietus: ἐπιμερὴς γίνεται αὐτὸς.
Book ιν. ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 175 tinctly to comprehend the natural idea of God, as of a being altogether incorruptible and simple, and uncompounded and indivisible. CHAPTER XV.: And with respect to His having descended among men, He was “ previously in the form of God;"! and through bene- volence, 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;"? nor from “virtue to vice," for * He knew no sin"? Nor did He pass from “happiness to misery," but He humbled Himself, and nevertheless was blessed, even when His humilia- tion was undergone in order to benefit our race. Nor was there any change in Him from “ best to worst," for how can good- ness 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 * hap- piness 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—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.’ 1 Cf. Phil. ii. 6, 7.? Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 22. 5 Cf. 2 Cor. v. 21. * προηγουμένην.
T 176 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book 1v.
CHAPTER 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 follov 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, and inferior to that of the sons of men."? 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.
CHAPTER XVII.
CHAPTER XVII.
But will not those narratives, especially when they are under- stood 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 re- turned 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 alto- gether ignorant of the purpose of our writings, and it is therel ἄτιμον. 3 ἐχλεῖ σον.
Book iv.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 177 fore 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! 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 ob- served 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.”
CHAPTER XVIII.
CHAPTER XVIII.
But Celsus, lingering over matters which he does not under- stand, leads us to be guilty of tautology, as we do not wish even in appearance to leave any one of his objections unex- amined. 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 bat evils, and would only be employed as 2 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, 1 τί ἀκολουθεῖ. ORIG.—VOL. II. M 178 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book rv.
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. 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 a bodv, 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! 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 ἐΐ 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 pre- sent 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.” ὅ CHAPTER XIX.
Others, then, may concede to Celsus that God does not un- dergo a change, but leads the spectators to imagine that He does; whereas we who are persuaded that the adv ent of Jesus among men was no mere appearance, but a real manifestation, 1 cí drowop. 3 Phil. ii. 5-9.
Book 1v. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 179 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?! Where, then, is the ab- surdity, 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 cha- racters a corrective effect (like the similar declarations of phy- sicians 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 reme- dies as He would not employ preferentially, but only according to circumstances.’ 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 state- ment 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.
CHAPTER XX, In the next place, as he represents the Jews accounting in 1 ὅμως 8 ἀπολογησόμεθα, ὅτι οὐ Ons, ὦ Κέλσε, ὡς ἐν φαρμάκου μοίρᾳ ποτὲ δίδοται χρῆσθαι τῷ πλανὰν καὶ τῷ ψενδεσθαι. — 2 προηγουμένω;, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ περιστάσεως.
180 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book rv.
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 over- whelm the earth, purifying it with water, some of them on the mountains,”? 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.
CHAPTER 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,’ 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- 1 Cf. Plato in the Timzus, and Book iii. de legibus. 3 cn C7.
Book 1v.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 181 called confusion of tongues is such a purificatory process. But on this point, he who has the opportunity will treat more season- ably when his object is to show not only what is the meaning of the narrative in its historical connection, but what meta- phorical meaning may be deduced from it! 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,? and referred it to the tower, we must remark that I do not think any one prior to the time of Homer? 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 Aloade pervert the history of the time, or he who wrote the account of the tower and the confusion of tongues the story of the Aloade?* Now to impartial hearers Moses appears to be more ancient than Homer. The destruction by fire, moreover, of Sodom and Gomorrha 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. 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.
l'Ezcdy» τὸ προκείμενον 4 παραστῆσαι καὶ τὼ τῆ; κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἱστορίας τίνα ἔχοι λόγον, καὶ τὰ τῆ; περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀναγωγῆς.
3 Otus and Ephialtes. Cf. Smith's Dict. of Myth. and Diog. s.v.
3 Cf. Hom. Odyss. xi. 805.
182 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. | [Book rv.
CHAPTER 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 having 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, i£ 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-wor- ship’ 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]? and re- turned 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,’ 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. For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the Saviour of the