2 ἐνεθυμήθη, in all probability a corruption for ἐθυρεώθη, which Hoeschel places in the text, and Spencer in the margin of his ed.: Heb. pn3n.
δ ἐνεθυμήθην. Cf. remark in note 2. i * Cf. Gen. vi. 5, 6. δ Cf. Plato in Timaeo.
Book vi. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 401 respect to the transference to God of those anthropopathic phrases, some remarks have been already made by us in the preceding pages. CHAPTER LIX.
Celsus, in the next place, suspecting, or perhaps seeing clearly enough, the answer which might be returned by those who defend the destruction of men by the deluge, continues: “But if he does not destroy his own offspring, whither does he convey them out of this world! which he himself created?" To this we reply, that God by no means removes out of the whole world, consisting of heaven and earth, those who suffered death by the deluge, but removes them from a life in the flesh, and, having set them free from their bodies, liberates them at the same time from an existence upon earth, which in many parts of Scripture it is usual to call the “world.” In the Gospel according to John especially, we may frequently find the regions of earth? termed “ world,” as in the passage, ** He was the true light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the * world;'"? as also in this, “In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”* If, then, we understand by “removing out of the world” a transference from “ regions on earth," there is nothing absurd in the expression. If, on the contrary, the system of things which consists of heaven and earth be termed * world," then those who perished in the deluge are by no means removed out of the so-called “world.” And yet, indeed, if we have regard to the words, * Looking not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen;"? and also to these, “ For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,” *— we might say that he who dwells amid the “ invisible" things, and what are called generally “things not seen,” is gone out of the world, the Word having removed him hence, and trans- ported him to the heavenly regions, in order to behold all beautiful things.
1 κόσμος. 3 roy περίγειον τόπον. 3 Cf. John i. 9. * Cf. John xvi. 33.
ORIG.—VOL. II. 20 402 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book vr.
CHAPTER LX.
But after this investigation of his assertions, as if his object were to swell his book by many words, he repeats, in different language, the same charges which we have examined a little ago, saying: * By far the most silly thing is the distribution of the creation of the world over certain days, before days existed: for, as the heaven was not yet created, nor the foundation of the earth yet laid,’ nor the sun yet revolving, how could there be days?” Now, what difference is there between these words and the following: “ Moreover, taking and looking at these things from the beginning, would it not be absurd in the first and greatest God to issue the command, Let this [first thing] come into existence, and this second thing, and this [third]; and after accomplishing so much on the first day, to do so much more again on the second, and third, and fourth, and fifth, and sixth?’”’ We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's ** commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created," when we quoted the words, 4 He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;”* remarking that the immediate * Creator, and, as it were, very Maker’ of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son—the Word—to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firme ment upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs' on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those [fruits] which are under the control of nature alone"), and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic’ animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signi- fication, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: “ These are the 1 ἐρῃηρεισμένης. 3 τῇδε Φερομένον. ὃ Cf. Ps. xxxiii. 9.
4 τὸν προσεχῶς δημιουργόν. 5 αὐτουργόν. δυναγωγαεὶς.
τὰ ὑπὸ μόνης Φύσεως διοικούμενα. 8 τὼ νηχτά.
Book v1. } ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 408 generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” * CHAPTER LXI.
Again, not understanding the meaning of the words, * And God ended on the sixth day His works which He had made, and ceased? on the seventh day from all His works which He had made: and God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it, because on it He had ceased? from all His works which He had begun to make;”* and imagining the expression, “ He ceased on the seventh day,” to be the same as this, * He rested* on the seventh day," he makes the remark: “ After this, indeed, he is weary,like a very bad workman, who stands in need of rest to refresh himself!" For he knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties,’ will ascend to the contemplation [of celestial things], and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings. In the next place, as if either the Scriptures made such a statement, or as if we ourselves so spoke of God as having rested from fatigue, he continues: “It is not in keeping with the fitness of things that the first God should feel fatigue, or work with His hands,’ or give forth commands." Celsus says, that “it is not in keep- ing with the fitness of things that the first God should feel fatigue.” Now we would say that neither does God the Word feel fatigue, nor any of those beings who belong to a better and diviner order of things, because the sensation of fatigue is peculiar to those who are in the body. You can examine whether this is true of those who possess a body of any kind, or of those who have an earthly body, or one a little better than this. But “neither is it consistent with the fitness of things that the first God should work with His own hands.” If you under- 1 Cf. Gen. ii. 4. 3 χατέπαυσεν. ὃ Cf. Gen. ii. 2, 8. * d:pszesvoetro. 5 cay ἐπιβαλλόντων. 8 οὐ θέρες. T χειρουργεῖν.
404 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book v1.
stand the words ^ work with His own hands” literally, then neither are they applicable to the second God, nor to any other being partaking of divinity. But suppose that they are spoken in an improper and figurative sense, so that we may translate the following expressions, “ And the firmament showeth forth His handywork,”! and “ the heavens are the work of Thy hands,” * and any other similar phrases, in a figurative manner, so far as respects the “ hands” and “limbs” of Deity, where is the absur- dity in the words, “ God thus working with His own hands?” And as there is no absurdity in God thus working, so neither 1s there in His issuing * commands;" so that what is done at His bidding should be beautiful and praiseworthy, because it was God who commanded it to be performed.
CHAPTER LXII.
CHAPTER LXII.
Celsus, again, having perhaps misunderstood the words, “ For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,"? or perhaps because some ignorant individuals had rashly ventured upon the ex- planation of such things, and not understanding, moreover, on what principles parts called after the names of the bodily members are assigned to the attributes* of God, asserts: * He has neither mouth nor voice.” Truly, indeed, God can have no voice, if the voice is a concussion of the air, or a stroke on the air, or a species of air, or any other definition which may be given to the voice by those who are skilled in such matters; but what is called the “ voice of God” is said to be seen as “ God's voice" by the people in the passage, * And all the people saw the voice of God;"? the word * saw" being taken, agreeably to the custom of Scripture, in a spiritual sense. Moreover, he alleges that * God possesses nothing else of which we have any knowledge;" but of what things we have knowledge he gives no indication. If he means “limbs,” we agree with him, under- standing the things “of which we have knowledge” to be those called corporeal, and pretty generally so termed. But if we are to understand the words “of which we have knowledge" in a uni- versal sense, then there are many things of which we have know- 3 Cf. Isa. i. 20. 4 ixl τῶν δυνάμεων. 5 Cf. Ex. xx. 18 (LXX.). The Masorctic text is different.
Book v1. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 405 ledge, [and which may be attributed to God]; for He possesses . virtue, and blessedness, and divinity. If we, however, put a higher meaning upon the words, * of which we have knowledge,” since all that we know is less than God, there is no absurdity in our also admitting that God possesses none of those things “ of which we have knowledge." For the attributes which belong to God are far superior to all things with which not merely the nature of man is acquainted, but even that of those who have risen far above it. And if he had read the writings of the prophets, David on the one hand saying, “ But Thou art the same,"! and Malachi on the other, “I am [the Lord], and change . not," he would have observed that none of us assert that there is any change in God, either in act or thought. For abiding the same, He administers mutable things according to their nature, and His word elects to undertake their administration.
CHAPTER LXIII, CHAPTER LXIII, Celsus, not observing the difference between * after the image of God” and “ God's image,” next asserts that the “ first-born of every creature" is the image of God, —the very word and truth, and also the very wisdom, being the image of His goodness, while man has been created after the image of God; moreover, that every man whose head is Christ is the image and glory of God;—and further, not observing to which of the characteristics of humanity the expression * after the image of God” belongs, and that it consists in a nature which never had or no longer has “ the old man with his deeds," being called “ after the image of Him who created it,” from its not possessing these qualities, —he maintains: “ Neither did He make man His image; for God is not such an one, nor like any other species of [visible] being." Is it possible to suppose that the element which is “ after the image of God” should exist in the inferior part—I mean the body—of a compound being like man, because Celsus has explained that to be made after the image of God? For if that which is * after the image of God" be in the body only, the better part, the soul, has been deprived of that which is “ after His image,” and this [distinction] exists in the corruptible body,—an assertion which 1 Cf. Ps. cii. 27. 3 Cf. Mal. iii. 6.
406 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Booz vi.
is made by none of us. But if that which is “after the image of God” be in both together, then God must necessarily be a compound being, and consist, as it were, of soul and body, in order that the element which is “ after God’s image,” the better part, may be in the soul; while the inferior part, and that which *is according to the body," may be in the body,—an assertion, again, which is made by none of us. It remains, therefore, that that which is “after the image of God” must be understood to be in our “inner man,” which is also renewed, and whose nature it is to be “ after the image of Him who created it," when a man becomes “ perfect,” as “ our Father in heaven is perfect," and hears the command, “ Be ye holy, for 1 the Lord your God am holy," ' and learning the precept, “ Be ye followers of God;"? receives into his virtuous soul the traits of God's image. The body, moreover, of him who possesses such a soul is a temple of God; and in the soul God dwells, because it has been made after His image.? CHAPTER LXIY.
Celsus, again, brings together a number of statements, which he gives as admissions on our part, but which no intelligent Christian would allow. For not one of us asserts that “ God partakes of form or colour.” Nor does He even partake of * motion,” because He stands firm, and His nature is perma nent, and He invites the righteous man also to do the same, saying: * But as for thee, stand thou here by me.”* And if certain expresssions indicate a kind of motion, as it were, on lis part, such as this, 4 They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,"* we must under- stand them in this way, that it is by sinners that God is under- stood as moving, or as we understand the “ sleep” of God, which is taken in a figurative sense, or His * anger," or any other similar attribute. But * God does not partake even of 2 Lev. xi. 44. 3 Cf. Eph. v. 1 (μιμιηταῦ).
8 The words as they stand in the text are probably corrupt: we have adopted in the translation the emendation of Guietus: fre xai ναὸς ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ ro cape, τοῦ τοιαύτην ἔχοντος ψυχὴν, xal ἐν τῇ Puxn Bid τὸ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα, τὸν Θεόν.
Book v1.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 407 substance.”* For He is partaken of [by others] rather than that Himself partakes of them, and He is partaken of by those who have the Spirit of God. Our Saviour, also, does not par- take of righteousness; but being Himself “righteousness,” He is partaken of ὃν the righteous. A discussion about * substance" would be protracted and difficult, and especially if it were a question whether that which is permanent and immaterial be ‘¢ substance” properly so called, so that it would be found that God is beyond “ substance,” communicating of His “ sub- stance," by means of office and power,’ to those to whom He communicates Himself by His Word, as He does to the Word Himself; or even if He is “ substance," yet He is said to be in His nature “ invisible," in these words respecting our Saviour, who is said to be “the image of the invisible God,”? while from the term “ invisible" it is indicated that He is “immaterial.” It is also a question for investigation, whether the * only-begotten" and “ first-born of every creature" is to be called “ substance of substances," and “ idea of ideas," and the “ principle of all things," while above all there is His Father and God.
CHAPTER LXV.
CHAPTER LXV.
Celsus proceeds to say of God that “of Him are all things,” abandoning [in so speaking], I know not how, all his principles;* while our Paul declares, that “of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things," * showing that He is the beginning of the substance of all things by the words “of Him,” and the bond of their subsistence by the expression “ through Him,” and their final end by the terms “to Him.” Of a truth, God is of nothing. But when Celsus adds, that “ He is not to be reached by word," I make a distinction, and say that if he means the word that is in us—whether the word conceived in the mind, or the word that is uttered '|—I, too, admit that God is not to be reached by word. If, however, we attend to the passage, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 1 οὐσία. 2 πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει. 3 Cf. Col. i 15.
4 For αὐτοῦ Boherellus conjectures αὐτοῦ, and translates, ‘‘ Propria ipse principia, que sunt Epicuri, subruens.”
5 Rom. xi. 36. 5 οὐδὲ λογῷ ἐφιχτός.
7 εἴτε ἐνδιαθέτῳ site καὶ προφορικῷ.
408 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book vr.
with God, and the Word was God,"! we are of opinion that God is to be reached by this Word, and is comprehended not by Him only, but by any one whatever to whom He may reveal the Father; and thus we shall prove the falsity of the assertion of Celsus, when he says, ‘“‘ Neither is God to be reached by word.” The statement, moreover, that * He cannot be ex- pressed by name,” requires to be taken with a distinction. If he means, indeed, that there is no word or sign? that can re- present the attributes of God, the statement is true, since there are many qualities which cannot be indicated by words. Who, for example, could describe in words the difference betwixt the quality of sweetness in a palm and that ina fig? And who could distinguish and set forth in words the peculiar qualities of each individual thing? It is no wonder, then, if in this way God cannot be described by name. But if you take the phrase to mean that it is possible to represent by words some- thing of God's attributes, in order to lead the hearer by the hand,’ as it were, and so enable him to comprehend something of God, so far as attainable by human nature, then there is no absurdity in saying that “ He can be described by name.” And we make a similar distinction with regard to the expression, * for He has undergone no suffering that can be conveyed by words.” It is true that the Deity is beyond all suffering. And so much on this point.
CHAPTER LXVI.
CHAPTER LXVI.
Let us look also at his next statement, in which he intro- duces, as it were, a certain person, who, after hearing what has been said, expresses himself in the following manner, “ How, then, shall I know God? and how shall I learn the way that leads to Him? And how will you show Him to me? Because now, indeed, you throw darkness before my eyes, and I see nothing distinctly." He then answers, as it were, the indi- vidual who is thus perplexed, and thinks that he assigns the reason why darkness has been poured upon the eyes of him who uttered the foregoing words, when he asserts that * those whom one would lead forth out of darkness into the brightness of light, being unable to withstand its splendours, have their 1Johnii 3 οὐδὲν τῶν i» λέξεσι xal σημιαινομένοις. δ χειραιγωγῆσαι.
Book vi. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 409 power of vision affected * and injured, and so imagine that they are smitten with blindness.” In answer to this, we would say that all those indeed sit in darkness, and are rooted in it, who fix their gaze upon the evil handiwork of painters, and moulders and sculptors, and who will not look upwards, and ascend in thought from all visible and sensible things, to the Creator of all things, who is light; while, on the other hand, every one is in light who has followed the radiance of the Word, who has shown in consequence of what ignorance, and impiety, and want of knowledge of divine things these objects were wor- shipped instead of God, and who has conducted the soul of him who desires to be saved towards the uncreated God, who is over all. For *the people that sat in darkness—the Gentiles—saw a great light, and to them who sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up,"?*—the God Jesus. No Christian, then, would give Celsus, or any accuser of the divine Word, the answer, * How shall I know God?" for each one of them knows God according to his capacity. And no one asks, *€ How shall I learn the way which leads to Him?” because he has heard Him who says, *I am the way, and the truth, and the life,"? and has tasted, in the course of the journey, the happiness which results from it. And not a single Christian would say to Celsus, “ How will you show me God?”
CHAPTER LXVII.
CHAPTER LXVII.
The remark, indeed, was true which Celsus made, that any one, on hearing his words, would answer, seeing that his words are words of darkness, “ You pour darkness before my eyes." Celsus verily, and those like him, do desire to pour darkness before our eyes: we, however, by means of the light of the Word, disperse the darkness of their impious opinions. The Christian, indeed, could retort on Celsus, who says nothing that is distinct or true, “I see nothing that is distinct among all your statements.” It is not, therefore, “out of darkness" into * the brightness of light" that Celsus leads us forth: he wishes, on the contrary, to transport us from light into darkness, making the darkness light and the light darkness, and exposing himself to the woe well described by the prophet Isaiah in the l χολάζισθαι. 2 Cf. Matt. iv. 16 and Isa. ix. 2. 8 John xiv. 6.
410 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boox vr.
following manner: * Woe unto them that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.” But we, the eyes of whose soul have been opened by the Word, and who see the difference between light and darkness, prefer by all means to take our stand “in the light,” and will have nothing to do with darkness at all. The true light, moreover, being endued with life, knows to whom his full splendours are to be manifested, and to whom his light; for he does not display his brilliancy on account of the still existing weakness in the eyes of the recipient. And if we must speak at all of “sight being affected and injured,” what other eyes shall we say are in this condition, than his who is involved in ignorance of God, and who is prevented by his passions from seeing the truth? Christians, however, by no means consider that they are blinded by the words of Celsus, or any other who is opposed to the worship of God. Bat let those who perceive that they are blinded by following multi- tudes who are in error, and tribes of those who keep festivals to demons, draw near to the Word, who can bestow the gift of sight,” in order that, like those poor and blind who had thrown themselves down by the wayside, and who were healed by Jesus because they said to Him, ** Son of David, have mercy upon me,” they too may receive mercy and recover their eyesight,’ fresh and beautiful, as the Word of God can create it.
CHAPTER LXVIII.
CHAPTER LXVIII.
Accordingly, if Celsus were to ask us how we think we know God, and how we shall be saved by Him, we would answer that the Word of God, which entered into those who seek Him, or who accept Him when He appears, is able to make known and to reveal the Father, who was not seen [by any one] before the appearance of the Word. And who else is able to save and conduct the soul of man to the God of all things, save God the Word, who, “being in the beginning with God,” became flesh for the sake of those who had cleaved to the flesh, and had become as flesh, that He might be received by those who could not behold Him, inasmuch as He was the Word, and was with God, and was God? And discoursing in human form,‘ and announcing Himself as flesh, He calls to Boox vi. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 411 Himself those who are flesh, that He may in the first place cause them to be transformed according to the Word that was made flesh, and afterwards may lead them upwards to behold Him as He was before He became flesh; so that they, receiv- ing the benefit, and ascending from their great introduction to Him, which was according to the flesh, say, “ Even if we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more.” Therefore He became flesh, and having be- come flesh, * He tabernacled among us," not dwelling without us; and after tabernacling and dwelling within us, He did not continue in the form in which He first presented Himself, but caused us to ascend to the lofty mountain of His word, and showed us His own glorious form, and the splendour of His garments; and not His own form alone, but that also of the spiritual law, which is Moses, seen in glory along with Jesus. He showed to us, moreover, all prophecy, which did not perish even after His incarnation, but was received up into heaven, and whose symbol was Elijah. And he who beheld these things could say, * We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”’ — Celsus, then, has exhibited considerable ignorance in the imaginary answer to his question which he puts into our mouth, “ How we think we can know God? and how we know we shall be saved by Him?” for our answer is what we have just stated.
CHAPTER LXIX.
CHAPTER LXIX.
Celsus, however, asserts that the answer which we give is based upon a probable conjecture,’ admitting that he de- scribes our answer in the following terms: * Since God is great and difficult to see,” He put His own Spirit into a body that resembled ours, and sent it down to us, that we might be enabled to hear Him and become acquainted with Him." But - the God and Father of all things is not the only being that is great in our judgment; for He has imparted [a share] of Himself and His greatness to His only-begotten and first-born of every creature, in order that He, being the image of the invisible God, might preserve, even in His greatness, the image of the Father. For it was not possible that there could exist 1 Of. John i. 14. 3 εἰχότι στοχασμιῷ. 3 δυσθεώρητος.
412 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boox vr.
a well-proportioned,! so to speak, and beautiful image of the invisible God, which did not at the same time preserve the image of His greatness. God, moreover, is in our judgment invisible, because He is not a body, while He can be seen by those who see with the heart, that is, the understanding; not indeed with any kind of heart, but with one which is pure. For it is inconsistent with the fitness of things that a polluted heart should look upon God; for that must be itself pure which would worthily behold that which is pure. Let it be granted, indeed, that God is “ difficult to see," yet He is not the only being who is so; for His Only-begotten also is “difficult to see." For God the Word is * difficult to see," and so also is His? wis- dom, by which God created all things. For who is capable of seeing the wisdom which is displayed in each individual part of the whole system of things, and by which God created every individualthing? It was not, then, because God was * difficult to see” that He sent God His Son to be an object “easy to be seen.” * And because Celsus does not understand this, he has represented us as saying, * Because God was ‘difficult to see,’ He put His own Spirit in a body resembling ours, and sent it down to us, that we might be enabled to hear Him and become acquainted with Him.” Now, as we have stated, the Son also is * difficult to see," because He is God the Word, through whom all things were nade, and who “ tabernacled amongst us.”
CHAPTER LXX.
CHAPTER LXX.
If Celsus, indeed, had understood our teaching regarding the Spirit of God, and had known that “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God,"* he would not have returned to himself the answer which he represents as coming from us, that * God put His own Spirit into a body, and sent it down to us;" for God is perpetually bestowing of His own Spirit to those who are capable of receiving it, although it is not by way of division and separation that He dwells in [the hearts of] the deserving. Nor is the Spirit, in our opinion, a “ body,” any more than fire is a “ body,” which 1 σύμμετρον. 3 For οὑτωσὶ we have adopted the conjecture of Guietus, rovrov. 3 ὡ; εὐθεώρητον. 4 Rom. viii. 14.
Book v1. } ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 413 God is said to be in the passage, “Our God is a consuming fire.” For all these are figurative expressions, employed to denote the nature of “ intelligent beings" by means of familiar and corporeal terms. In the same way, too, if sins are called € wood, and straw, and stubble,” we shall not maintain that sins are corporeal; and if blessings are termed “ gold, and silver, and precious stones,"? we shall not maintain that bless- ings are “ corporeal;" so also, if God be said to be a fire that consumes wood, and straw, and stubble, and all substance? of sin, we shall not understand Him to be a “ body,” so neither do we understand Him to be a body if He should be called “fire.” In this way, if God be called “spirit,’* we do not mean that He isa “body.” For it is the custom of Scripture to give to “intelligent beings” the names of “ spirits” and “ὁ spiritual things,” by way of distinction from those which are the objects of *sense;" as when Paul says, * But our suf- ficiency is of God, who hath also made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,"? where by the * Jetter" he means that “ exposition of Scripture which is ap- parent to the senses,"5 while by the “ spirit” that which is the object of the “understanding.” It is the same, too, with the expression, ‘God is a Spirit.” And because the prescrip- tions of the law were obeyed both by Samaritans and Jews in a corporeal and literal’ manner, our Saviour said to the Sama- ritan woman, “ The hour is coming, when neither in Jerusalem, nor in this mountain, shall ye worship the Father. God isa Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”® And by these words He taught men that God must be worshipped not in the flesh, and with fleshly sacrifices, but in the spirit. And He will be understood to be a Spirit in proportion as the worship rendered to Him is rendered in spirit, and with understanding. It is not, however, with images? that 1 Cf. Heb. xii. 29. 2 Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12. 3 χᾶσαν οὐσίαν.
* χγεῦμα. There isan allusion to the two meanings of πνεῦμα, “" wind " and “6 spirit.”
5 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. 8 γὴν αἰσθητὴν ἐκδοχὴν.
7 τυπικῶς here evidently must have the above meaning 5 Cf. John iv. 21, 24. 9 ἐν τύποις.
414 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book v1.
we are to worship the Father, but * in truth,” which * came by Jesus Christ,” after the giving of the law by Moses. For when we turn to the Lord (and the Lord is a Spirit’), He takes away the veil which lies upon the heart when Moses is read.
CHAPTER LXXI.