which he considers opposed to it. On the one hand, we know that “it was said to them in old time, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;"! and on the other, we have read, “I say unto you, Whoever shall smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.”? But as there is reason to believe that Celsus produces the objections which he has heard from those who wish to make a difference between the God of the gospel and the God of the law, we must say in reply, that this pre- cept, Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the-other,” is not unknown to the older Scriptures. For thus, in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, it is said, “It is good for a man that he beareth the yoke in his youth: he sitteth alone, and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him: he giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him; he is filled full with reproach.” There is no discrepancy, then, between the God of the gospel and the God of the law, even when we take literally the precept regarding the blow on the face. So, then, we in- fer that neither “ Jesus nor Moses has taught falsely.” The Father in sending Jesus did not “‘ forget the commands which He had given to Moses:” He did not “change His mind, condemn His own laws, and send by His messenger counter instructions.”
CHAPTER XXVI.
However, if we must refer briefly to the difference between the constitution which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which the Christians, under the direction of Christ's teaching, wish now to establish, we would observe that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles, and with their sub- jection to the Roman government; and on the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the gospel. For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments; since the Jews themselves, however desirous of carrying out their law, are not able to inflict these punishments.
Boox vir.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 449 But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to sub- ject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from resisting the enemy. And that same providence which of old gave the law, and has now given the gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing the Jewish state to con- tinue longer, has destroyed their city and their temple: it has abolished the worship which was offered to God in that temple by the sacrifice of victims, and other ceremonies which He had prescribed. And as it has destroyed these things, not wishing that they should longer continue, in like manner it has extended day by day the Christian religion, so that it is now preached everywhere with boldness, and that in spite of the numerous obstacles which oppose the spread of Christ’s teaching in the world. But since it was the purpose of God that the nations should receive the benefits of Christ’s teaching, all the devices of men against Christians have been brought to nought; for the more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more have they increased in number and grown in strength.
CHAPTER XXVII.
After this Celsus relates at length opinions which he ascribes to us, but which we do not hold, regarding the Divine Being, to the effect that * he is corporeal in his nature, and possesses a body like a man.” As he undertakes to refute opinions which are none of ours, it would be needless to give either the opinions themselves or their refutation. Indeed, if we did hold those views of God which he ascribes to us, and which he opposes, we would be bound to quote his words, to adduce our own arguments, and to refute his. But if he brings forward opinions which he has either heard from no one, or if it be assumed that he has heard them, it must have been from those who are very simple and ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, then we need not undertake so superfluous a task as that of ORIG.—VOL. II. 2F 450 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Βοοκ vu.
refuting them. For the Scriptures plainly speak of God as of a being without body. Hence it is said, “No man hath seen God at any time;"! and the First-born of all creation is called *the image of the invisible God,"? which is the same as if it were said that He is incorporeal. However, we have already said something on the nature of God while examining into the meaning of the words, “ God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
CHAPTER XXVIII.
After thus misrepresenting our views of the nature of God, Celsus goes on to ask of us * where we hope to go after death;" and he makes our answer to be, “to another land better than this.” On this he comments as follows: “The divine men of a former age have spoken of a happy life reserved for the souls of the blessed. Some designated it ‘the isles of the blest,’ and others ‘the Elysian plain, so called because they were there to be delivered from their present evils. Thus Homer says: ‘ But the gods shall send thee to the Elysian plain, on the borders of the earth, where they lead a most quiet life." Plato also, who believed in the immortality of the soul, dis- tinctly gives the name *land' to the place where it is sent. ‘The extent of it,* says he, ‘is immense, and we only occupy a small portion of it, from the Phasis to the Pillars of Hercules, where we dwell along the shores of the sea, as grasshoppers and frogs beside a marsh. But there are many other places inhabited in like manner by other men. For there are in different parts of the earth cavities, varying in form and in magnitude, into which run water, and clouds, and air. But that land which is pure lies in the pure region of heaven.’” Celsus therefore supposes that what we say of a land which is much better and more excellent than this, has been borrowed from certain ancient writers whom he styles * divine," and chiefly from Plato, who in his Phedon discourses on the pure land lying in a pure heaven. But he does not see that Moses, who is much older than the Greek literature, introduces God 88 _ promising to those who lived according to His law the holy Boox vi] — ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 451 land, which is * a good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey;”* which promise is not to be understood to refer, as some suppose, to that part of the earth which we call Judaea; for it, however good it may be, still forms part of the earth, which was originally cursed for the transgression of Adam, For these words, “ Cursed shall the ground be for what thou hast done; with grief, that is, with labour, shalt thou eat of the fruit of it all the days of thy life," ἢ were spoken of the whole earth, the fruit of which every man who died in Adam eats with sorrow or labour all the days of his life. And as all the earth has been cursed, it brings forth thorns and briers all the days of the life of those who in Adam were driven out of paradise; and in the sweat of his face every man eats bread until he returns to the ground from which he was | taken. For the full exposition of all that is contained in this passage much might be said; but we have confined ourselves to these few words at present, which are intended to remove the idea, that what is said of the good land promised by God to the righteous, refers to the land of Judea.
CHAPTER XXIX.
CHAPTER XXIX.
If, then, the whole earth has been cursed in the deeds of Adam and of those who died in him, it is plain that all parts of the earth share in the curse, and among others the land of Judea; so that the words, “‘a good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey," cannot apply to it, although we may say of it, that both Judaea and Jerusalem were the shadow and figure of that pure land, goodly and large, in the pure region of heaven, in which is the heavenly Jerusalem. And it is in reference to this Jerusalem that the apostle spoke, as one who, “ being risen with Christ, and seeking those things; which are above," had found a truth which formed no part of the Jewish mythology. * Ye are come,” says he, “unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly: Jeru- salem, and to an innumerable company of angels."? And in order to be assured that our explanation of * the good and large land" of Moses is not contrary to the intention of the Divine Spirit, we have only to read in all the prophets what they say Ex. iii. 8. 3 Gen. iii. 17. * Heb. xii. 22.
452 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Booz vn.
of those who, after having left Jerusalem, and wandered astray from it, should afterwards return and be settled in the place which is called the habitation and city of God, as in the words, * His dwelling is in the holy place;”* and, * Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the moun- tain of His holiness, beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth.”* It is enough at present to quote the words of the thirty- seventh Psalm, which speaks thus of the land of the righteous, * Those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth;" and a little after, ** But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace; " and again, *'Those who bless Him shall inherit the earth;” and, “The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever."' And consider whether it is not evident to intelligent readers that the following words from this same Psalm refer to the pure land in the pure heaven: ** Wait on the Lord, and keep His way; and He shall exalt thee to inherit the land.”
CHAPTER XXX.
CHAPTER XXX.
It seems to me also that that fancy of Plato, that those stones which we call precious stones derive their lustre from a reflection, as it were, of the stones in that better land, is taken from the words of Isaiah in describing the city of God, “I will make thy battlements of jasper, thy stones shall be crystal, and thy borders of precious stones;"* and, “TI will lay thy foundations with sapphires.” Those who hold in greatest reverence the teaching of Plato, explain this myth of his as an allegory. And the prophecies from which, as we conjecture, Plato has borrowed, will be explained by those who, leading a godly life like that of the prophets, devote all their time to the study of the sacred Scriptures, to those who are qualified to learn by purity of life, and their desire to advance in divine knov- ledge. For our part, our purpose has been simply to say that what we affirm of that sacred land has not been taken from | Plato or any of the Greeks, but that they rather—living 25 they did not only after Moses, who was the oldest, but even Book vit. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 453 after most of the prophets—borrowed from them, and in so doing either misunderstood their obscure intimations on such subjects, or else endeavoured, in their allusions to the better land, to imitate those portions of Scripture which had fallen into their hands. Haggai expressly makes a distinction be- tween the earth and the dry land, meaning by the latter the land in which we live. He says: ‘“ Yet once, and I will shake the heavens and the earth, and the dry land, and the sea."!
CHAPTER XXXI.
Referring to the passage in the Phedon of Plato, Celsus says: “It is not easy for every one to understand the meaning of Plato's words, when he says that on account of our weakness and slowness we are unable to reach the highest region of the air; but that if our nature were capable of so sublime a con- templation, we would then be able to understand that that is the true heaven, and that the true light." As Celsus has deferred to another opportunity the explanation of Plato's idea, we also think that it does not fall within our purpose at pre- sent to enter into any full description of that holy and good land, and of the city of God which is in it; but reserve the consideration of it for our Commentary on the Prophets, having already in part, according to our power, treated of the city of God in our remarks on the forty-sixth and forty-eighth Psalms. The writings of Moses and the prophets—the most ancient of all books—teach us that all things here on earth which are in common use among men, have other things corresponding to them in name which are alone real. "Thus, for instance, there is the true light, and another heaven beyond the firmament, and a Sun of righteousness other than the sun we see. In a word, to distinguish those things from the objects of sense, which have no true reality, they say of God that * His works are truth;"? thus making a distinction between the works of God and the works of God's hands, which latter are of an inferior sort. Accordingly, God in Isaiah complains of men, that “they regard not the works of the Lord, nor consider the operation of His hands." But enough on this point.
454 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book vi.
CHAPTER XXXII.
Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, which is a high and difficult doctrine, and one which more than others requires a high and advanced degree of wisdom to set forth how worthy it is of God; and how sublime a truth it is which teaches us that there is a seminal principle lodged in that which Scripture speaks of as the “tabernacle ” of the soul, in which ‘the righteous “do groan, being burdened, not for that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon."! Celsus ridicules this doctrine because he does not understand it, and because he has learnt it from ignorant persons, who were unable to support it on any reasonable grounds. It will be profitable, therefore, that in addition to what we have said above, we should make this one remark. Our teaching on the subject of the resurrec- tion is not, as Celsus imagines, derived from anything that we have heard on the doctrine of metempsychosis; but we know that the soul, which is immaterial and invisible in its nature, exists in no material place, without having a body suited to the nature of that place. Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer etherial regions of heaven. When it comes into the world at birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon earth. Then, again, as there is “a tabernacle” and “an earthly house" which is in some sort - necessary for this tabernacle, Scripture teaches us that “the earthly house of this tabernacle shall be dissolved," but that ‘the tabernacle shall “be clothed upon with a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens"? The men of God say also that “the corruptible shall put on incorruption,"? which is a different thing from “the incorruptible;" and “the mortal shall put on immortality,” which is different from “the immor- tal.” Indeed, what *^wisdom" is to * the wise,” and ** justice" to “the just,” and “peace” to “the peaceable,” the same Boox vu. } ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 455 relation does “ incorruption" hold to “the incorruptible,” and ‘immortality " to “the immortal.” Behold, then, to what a prospect Scripture encourages us to look, when it speaks to us of being clothed with incorruption and immortality, which are, as it were, vestments which will not suffer those who are covered with them to come to corruption or death. Thus far I have taken the liberty of referring to this subject, in answer to one who assails the doctrine of the resurrection without under- standing it, and who, simply because he knew nothing about. it, made it the object of contempt and ridicule.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
As Celsus supposes that we uphold the doctrine of the resur- rection in order that we may see and know God, he thus follows out his notions on the subject: * After they have been utterly refuted and vanquished, they still, as if regardless of all objec- tions, come back again to the same question, * How then shall we see and know God? how shall we go to Him?’” Let any, however, who are disposed to hear us observe, that if we have need of a body for other purposes, as for occupying a material locality to which this body must be adapted, and if on that account the “tabernacle” is clothed in the way we have shown, we have no need of a body in order to know God. For that which sees God is not the eye of the body; it is the mind which is made in the image of the Creator,’ and which God has in His providence rendered capable of that knowledge. To see God belongs to the pure heart, out of which no longer proceed * evi] thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, the evil eye,"? or any other evil thing. Wherefore it is said, * Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”* But as the strength of our will is not sufficient to procure the perfectly pure heart, and as we need that God should create it, he therefore who prays as he ought, offers this petition to God, “Create in me a clean heart, O God." * 1 Bouhéreau follows the reading, ‘‘ the mind which sees what is made i in the image of the Creator.” 2 Matt. xv. 19 and vi. 23. 3 Matt. v. 8. * Ps, li. 10.
456 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book vu.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
And we do not ask the question, * How shall we go to God?" as though we thought that God existed in some place. God is of too excellent a nature for any place: He holds all things in His power, and is Himself not confined by anything whatever. The precept, therefore, “Thou shalt walk after the Lord thy God,”! does not command a bodily approach to God; neither does the prophet refer to physical nearness to God, when he says in his prayer, * My soul followeth hard after Thee."? Celsus therefore misrepresents us, when he says that we expect to see God with our bodily eyes, to hear Him with our ears, and to touch Him sensibly with our hands. We know that the holy Scriptures make mention of eyes, of ears, and of hands, which have nothing but the name in common with the bodily organs; and what is more wonderful, they speak of a diviner sense, which is very different from the senses as commonly spoken of. For when the prophet says, * Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law,”? or, “ The command- ment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,” * or, * Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death,"? no one is so foolish as to suppose that the eyes of the body behold the wonders of the divine law, or that the law of the Lord gives light to the bodily eyes, or that the sleep of death falls on the eyes of the body. When our Saviour says, * He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” 5 any one will understand that the ears spoken of are of a diviner kind. When it is said that the word of the Lord was “in the hand” of Jeremiah or of some other prophet; or when the expression is used, “the law by the hand of © Moses,” or, “I sought the Lord with my hands, and was not deceived,” ’—no one is so foolish as not to see that the word “hands” is taken figuratively, as when John says, * Our hands have handled the Word of life.”* And if you wish further to learn from the sacred writings that there is a diviner sense 1 Deut. xiii. 4. 2 Pg. ]xiii. 8. 5 Pg, xiii. 9. 6 Matt. xiii. 9.
? Ps. Ixxvii. 2, according to the LX X.
Book vir. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 457 than the senses of the body, you have only to hear what Solo- mon says, “ Thou shalt find,a divine sense.”!
CHAPTER XXXV.
Seeking God, then, in this way, we have no need to visit the oracles of 'Trophonius, of Amphiaraus, and of Mopsus, to which Celsus would send us, assuring us that we would there “ see the gods in human form, appearing to us with all distinctness, and without illusion." For we know that these are demons, feeding on the blood, and smoke, and odour of victims, and shut up by their base desires in prisons, which the Greeks call temples of the gods, but which we know are only the dwellings of deceitful demons. To this Celsus maliciously adds, in regard to these gods which, according to him, are in human form, “they do not show themselves for once, or at intervals, like him who has de- ceived men, but they are ever open to intercourse with those who desire it" From this remark, it would seem that Celsus supposes that the appearance of Christ to His disciples after His resurrection was like that of a spectre flitting before their eyes; whereas these gods, as he calls them, in human shape always present themselves to those who desire it. But how is it possible that a phantom which, as he describes it, flew past to deceive the beholders, could produce such effects after it had passed away, and could so turn the hearts of men as to lead them to regulate their actions according to the will of God, as in view of being hereafter judged by Him? And how could a phantom drive away demons, and show other indisputable evidences of power, and that not in any one place, like these so-called gods in human form, but making its divine power felt through the whole world, in drawing and congregating together all who are found disposed to lead a good and noble life?
CHAPTER XXXVI.
After these remarks of Celsus, which we have endeavoured to answer as we could, he goes on to say, speaking of us: “Again they will ask, * How can we know God, unless by the perception of the senses? for how otherwise than through the senses are we able to gain any knowledge?'" To this he replies: “ This is 1 Prov. ii. 5. E. V. and LXX., ** Thou shalt find the knowledge of God."
458 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book vu.
not the language of a man; it comes not from the soul, but from the flesh. Let them hearken to us, if such a spiritless and carnal race are able to do so: if, instead of exercising the senses, you look upwards with the soul; if, turning away the eye of the body, you open the eye of the mind, thus and thus only will you be able to see God. And if you seek one to be your guide along this way, you must shun all deceivers and jugglers, who will introduce you to phantoms. Otherwise you will be acting the most ridiculous part, if, whilst you pronounce impre- cations upon those others that are recognised as gods, treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a more wretched idol than any of these, which indeed is not even an idol or a phantom, but a dead man, and you seek a father like to him.” The first remark which we have to make on this passage is in regard to his use of personification, by which he makes us defend in this way the doctrine of the resurrection. This figure of speech is properly employed when the character and sentiments of the person introduced are faithfully preserved; but it is an abuse of the figure when these do not agree with the character and opinions of the speaker. Thus we should justly condemn a man who put into the mouths of barbarians, slaves, or un- educated people the language of philosophy; because we know that the philosophy belonged to the author, and not to such persons, who could not know anything of philosophy. And in like manner we should condemn a man for introducing per- sons who are represented as wise and well versed in divine knowledge, and should make them give expression to language which could only come out of the mouths of those who are ignorant or under the influence of vulgar passions. Hence Homer is admired, among other things, for preserving a con- sistency of character in his heroes, as in Nestor, Ulysses, Diomede, Agamemnon, Telemachus, Penelope, and the rest. Euripides, on the contrary, was assailed in the comedies of Aristophanes as a frivolous talker, often putting into the mouth of a barbarian woman, a wretched slave, the wise maxims which he had learned from Anaxagoras or some other philosophers.
Book vil. } ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 459 CHAPTER XXXVII.
Now if this is a true accourit of what constitutes the right and the wrong use of personification, have we not grounds for holding Celsus up to ridicule for thus ascribing to Christians words which they never uttered? For if those whom he represents as speaking are the unlearned, how is it possible that such persons could distinguish between “ sense” and * reason,” between “ objects of sense” and “ objects of the reason?” To argue in this way, they would require to have studied under the Stoics, who deny all intellectual existences, and maintain that all that we apprehend is apprehended through the senses, and that all knowledge comes through the senses. But if, on the other hand, he puts these words into the mouth of philosophers who search carefully into the meaning of Christian doctrines, the statements in question do not agree with their character and principles. For no one who has learnt that God is invisible, and that certain of His works are invisible, that is to say, appre- hended by the reason,’ can say, as if to justify his faith in a resurrection, “How can they know God, except by the perception of the senses?” or, * How otherwise than through the senses can they gain any knowledge?” For it is not in any secret writings, perused only by a few wise men, but in such as are most widely diffused and most commonly known among the people, that these words are written: **'The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made."? From whence it is to be inferred, that though men who live upon the earth have to begin with the use of the senses upon sensible objects, in order to go on from them to a knowledge of the nature of things intellectual, yet their knowledge must not stop short with the objects of sense. And thus, while Christians would not say that it is impossible to have a knowledge of intellectual objects with- out the senses, but rather that the senses supply the first means of obtaining knowledge, they might well ask the question, ** Who can gain any knowledge without the senses?" without deserving