CHAPTEB XLIX.
What I have now said, then, is offered not for the purpose of 472 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [ Book vir.
cavilling with any right opinions or sound doctrines held even by Greeks, but with the desire of showing that the same things, and indeed much better and diviner things than these, have been said by those divine men, the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus. These truths are fully investigated by all who wish to attain a perfect knowledge of Christianity, and who know that * the mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment; the law of his God is in his heart."! But even in regard to those who, either from deficiency of knowledge or want of inclination, or from not having Jesus to lead them to a rational view of religion, have not gone into these deep questions, we find that they believe in the Most High God, and in His only-begotten Son, the Word and God, and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, * men with men working that which is unseemly."?
CHAPTER L.
CHAPTER L.
Celsus has not explained how error accompanies the “ becom- ing," or product of generation; nor has he expressed himsel with sufficient clearness to enable us to compare his ideas with ours, and to pass judgment on them. But the prophets, who have given some wise suggestions on the subject of things pro- duced by generation, tell us that a sacrifice for sin was offered even for new-born infants, as not being free from sin. They say, 41 was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me;"? also, “ They are estranged from the womb;" which ἰδ followed by the singular expression, “ They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.”* Besides, our wise men have such a contempt for all sensible objects, that sometimes they speak of all material things as vanity: thus, “ For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that sub- jected the same in hope; "^ at other times as vanity of vanities * Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity.”® Who has given so severe an estimate of the life of the human soul Book vii. } ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 473 here on earth, as he who says: “ Verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity?” He does not hesitate at all as to the difference between the present life of the soul and that which it is to lead hereafter. He does not say, “ Who knows if to die is not to live, and if to live is not death??? But he boldly proclaims the truth, and says, * Our soul is bowed down to the dust; "? and, * Thou hast brought me into the dust of death; "* and similarly, “ Who will deliver me from the body of this death? "? also, ** Who will change the body of our humilia- tion." It is a prophet also who says, “Thou hast brought us down in a place of affliction;”’ meaning by the “ place of afflic- tion" this earthly region, to which Adam, that is to say, man, came after he was driven out of paradise for sin. Observe also how well the different life of the soul here and hereafter has been recognised by him who says, * Now we see in a glass, ob- scurely, but then face to face;"* and, ‘“‘ Whilst we are in our home in the body, we are away from our home in the-Lord;" wherefore *€ we are well content to go from our home in the body, and to come to our home with the Lord."?
CHAPTER LI.
CHAPTER LI.
But what need is there to quote any more passages against Celsus, in order to prove that his words contain nothing which was not said long before among ourselves, since that has been sufficiently established by what we have said? It seems that what follows has some reference to this: * If you think that a Divine Spirit has descended from God to announce divine things to men, it is doubtless this same Spirit that reveals these truths; and it was under the same influence that men of old made known many important truths.” But he does not know how great is the difference between those things and the clear and certain teaching of those who say to us, * Thine incorruptible spirit is in all things, wherefore God chasteneth them by little and little that offend;"! and of those who, among their other instruc- tions, teach us that the words, “ Receive ye the Holy Ghost," " 474 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boom wi.
refer to a degree of spiritual influence higher than that in the passage, “ Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."! But it is a difficult matter, even after much care- ful consideration, to perceive the difference between those who have received a knowledge of the truth and a notion of God at different intervals and for short periods of time, and those who are more fully inspired by God, who have constant communion with Him, and are always led by His Spirit. Had Celsus set himself to understand this, he would not have reproached us with ignorance, or forbidden us to characterize as * blind" those who believe that religion shows itself in such products of man's mechanical art as images. For every one who sees with the eyes of his soul serves the Divine Being in no other way than in that which leads him ever to have regard to the Creator of all, to address his prayers to Him alone, and to do all things as in the sight of God, who sees us altogether, even to our thoughts. Our earnest desire then is both to see for ourselves, and to be leaders of the blind, to bring them to the Word of God, that He may take away from their minds the blindness of ignorance. And if our actions are worthy of Him who taught His disciples, * Ye are the light of the world,"? and of the Word, who says, “ The light shineth in darkness,"? then we shall be light to those who are in darkness; we shall give wisdom to those who are without it, and we shall instruct the ignorant.
CHAPTER LII.
And let not Celsus be angry if we describe as lame and mutilated in soul those who run to the temples as to places having a real sacredness, and who cannot see that no mere mechanical work of man can be truly sacred. "Those whose piety is grounded on the teaching of Jesus also run until they come to the end of their course, when they can say in all truth and confidence: *I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness.” * And each of us runs “ not as uncertain," and he so fights with evil * not as one beating the air," ^ but as against those who are subject to “ the prince Boox vir.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 475 of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the chil- dren of disobedience.” Celsus may indeed say of us that we: * live with the body which is a dead thing;" but we have learnt, « [f ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live;"? and, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”* Would that we might convince him by our actions that he did us wrong, when he said that we * live with the body which is dead!”
CHAPTER LIII.
After these remarks of Celsus, which we have done our best to refute, he goes on to address us thus: “Seeing you are so eager for some novelty, how much better it would have been if you had chosen as the object of your zealous homage some one of those who died a glorious death, and whose divinity might have received the support of some myth to perpetuate his memory! Why, if you were not satisfied with Hercules or /Esculapius, and other heroes of antiquity, you had Orpheus, who was confessedly a divinely inspired man, who died a vio- lent death. But perhaps some others have taken him up before you. You may then take Anaxarchus, who, when cast into a mortar, and beaten most barbarously, showed a noble contempt for his suffering, and said, ‘ Beat, beat the shell of Anaxarchus, for himself you do not beat,'—a speech surely of a spirit truly divine. But others were before you in following his interpre- tation of the laws of nature. Might you not, then, take Epictetus, who, when his master was twisting his leg, said, smiling and unmoved, ‘ You will break my leg;' and when it was broken, he added, * Did I not tell you that you would break 1t?’ What saying equal to these did your god utter under suffering? If you had said even of the Sibyl, whose authority some of you acknowledge, that she was a child of God, you would have said something more reasonable. But you have had the presump- tion to include in her writings many impious things, and set up as a god one who ended a most infamous life by a most miser- able death. How much more suitable than he would have been Jonah in the whale's belly, or Daniel delivered from the wild beasts, or any of a still more portentous kind!”
476 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book vu.
CHAPTER LIV.
But since he sends us to Hercules, let him repeat to us any of his sayings, and let him justify his shameful subjection to Omphale. Let him show that divine honours should be paid to one who, like a highway robber, carries off a farmer's ox by force, and afterwards devours it, amusing himself meanwhile with the curses of the owner; in memory of which even to this day sacrifices offered to the demon of Hercules are accom- panied with curses. Again he proposes ZEsculapius to us, as if to oblige us to repeat what we have said already; but we for- bear. In regard to Orpheus, what does he admire in him to make bim assert that, by common consent, he was regarded as a divinely inspired man, and lived a noble life? 1 am greatly deceived if it is not the desire which Celsus has to oppose us and put down Jesus that leads him to sound forth the praises of Orpheus; and whether, when he made himself acquainted with his impious fables about the gods, he did not cast them aside as deserving, even more than the poems of Homer, to be excluded from a well-ordered state. For, indeed, Orpheus says much worse things than Homer of those whom they call gods. Noble, indeed, it was in Anaxarchus to say to Aristocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, * Beat on, beat the shell of Anaxarchus,” but it is the one admirable incident in the life of Anaxarchus known to the Greeks; and although, on the strength of that, some like Celsus might deservedly honour the man for his ‘courage, yet to look up to Anaxarchus as a god is not consistent with reason. He also directs us to Epictetus, whose firmness is justly admired, although his saying when his leg was broken by his master is not to be compared with the marvellous acts and words of Jesus which Celsus refuses to believe; and these words were accompanied by such a divine power, that even to this day they convert not only some of the more ignorant and simple, but many also of the most enlightened of men.
CHAPTER LV.
When, to his enumeration of those to whom he would send us, he adds, ** What saying equal to these did your god utter under sufferings?" we would reply, that the silence of Jesus Book vit. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 477 under scourgings, and amidst all His sufferings, spoke more for His firmness and submission than all that was said by the Greeks when beset by calamity. Perhaps Celsus may believe what was recorded with all sincerity by trustworthy men, who, while giving a truthful account of all the wonders performed by Jesus, specify among these the silence which He preserved when sub- jected to scourgings; showing the same singular meekness under the insults which were heaped upon Him, when they put upon Him the purple robe, and set the crown of thorns upon His head, and when they put in His hand a reed in place of a sceptre: no unworthy or angry word escaped Him agaist those who subjected Him to such outrages. Since, then, He received the scourgings with silent firmness, and bore with meekness all the insults of those who outraged Him, it cannot be said, as is said by some, that it was in cowardly weakness that He uttered the words: “ Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”+ The prayer which seems to be contained in these words for the removal of what He calls * the cup" bears a sense which we have elsewhere examined and set forth at large. But taking it in its more obvious sense, consider if it be not a prayer offered to God with all piety. For no man naturally regards anything which may befall him as necessary and inevitable; though he may submit to what is not inevitable, if occasion requires. Besides, these words, “ nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt,” are not the language of one who yielded to neces- sity, but of one who was contented with what was befalling Him, and who submitted with reverence to the arrangements of Providence.
CHAPTER LVI.
Celsus then adds, for what reason I know not, that instead of calling Jesus the Son of God, we had better have given that honour to the Sibyl, in whose books he maintains we have in- terpolated many impious statements, though he does not men- tion what those interpolations are. He might have proved his assertion by producing some older copies which are free from the interpolations which he attributes to us; but he does not 1 Matt. xxvi. 39, 478 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boos vir.
do so even to justify his statement that these passages are of an impious character. Moreover, he again speaks of the life of Jesus as “a most infamous life," as he has done before, not once or twice, but many times, although he does not stay to specify any of the actions of His life which he thinks most infamous. He seems to think that he may in this way make assertions without proving them, and rail against one of whom he knows nothing. Had he set himself to show what sort of infamy he found in the actions of Jesus, we should have repelled the several charges brought against Him. Jesus did indeed meet with a most sad death; but the same might be said of Socrates, and of Anaxarchus, whom he had just mentioned, and a mul- titude of others. If the death of Jesus was a miserable one, was not that of the others so too? And if their death was not miserable, can it be said that the death of Jesus was? You see from this, then, that the object of Celsus is to vilify the character of Jesus; and I can only suppose that he is driven to it by some spirit akin to those whose power has been broken and vanquished by Jesus, and which now finds itself deprived of the smoke and blood on which it lived, whilst deceiving those who sought for God here upon earth in images, instead of looking up to the true God, the Governor of all things.
CHAPTER LVII.
CHAPTER LVII.
After this, as though his object was to swell the size of his book, he advises us “to choose Jonah rather than Jesus as our God;” thus setting Jonah, who preached repentance to the single city of Nineveh, before Jesus, who has preached repent- ance to the whole world, and with much greater results. He - would have us to regard as God a man who, by a strange miracle, passed three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; and he is unwilling that He who submitted to death for the sake of men, He to whom God bore testimony through the prophets, and who has done great things in heaven and earth, should receive on that ground honour second only to that which is given to the Most High God. Moreover, Jonah was swallowed by the whale for refusing to preach as God had commanded him; while Jesus suffered death for men after He had given the instructions which God wished Him to give. Still further, Book vu. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 479 he adds that Daniel rescued from the lions is more worthy of our adoration than Jesus, who subdued the fierceness of every opposing power, and gave to us “ authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy."! Finally, having no other names to offer us, he adds, ** and others of a still more monstrous kind,’—thus casting a slight upon both Jonah and Daniel; for the spirit which is in Celsus cannot speak well of the righteous.
CHAPTER LVIII.
Let us now consider what follows. ‘ They have also,” says he, “a precept to this effect, that we ought not to avenge our- selves on one who injures us, or, as he expresses it, * Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.’ This is an ancient saying, which had been admirably expressed long before, and which they have only reported in a coarser way. For Plato introduces Socrates conversing with Crito as follows: * Must we never do injustice to any?’ * Certainly not.’ * And since we must never do injustice, must we not return injustice for an injustice that has been done to us, as most people think?? *]t seems to me that we should not. *But tell me, Crito, may we do evil to any one or not?’ ‘ Certainly not, O Socrates.’ ‘ Well, is it just, as is commonly said, for one who has suffered wrong to do wrong in return, or is it unjust?’ ‘It is unjust. Yes; for to do harm to a man is the same as to do him injustice.’ ‘ You speak truly. We must then not do injustice in return for injustice, nor must we do evil to any one, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. Thus Plato speaks; and he adds, * Consider, then, whether you are at one with me, and whether, starting from this principle, we may not come to the conclusion that it is never right to do injustice, even in return for an injustice which has been re- ceived; or whether, on the other hand, you differ from me, and do not admit the principle from which we started. That has always been my opinion, and is so still? Such are the senti- ments of Plato, and indeed they were held by divine men before his time. But let this suffice as one example of the way in which this and other truths have been borrowed and cor- 480 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. _[Boox vn.
rupted. Any one who wishes can easily by searching find more of them.”
CHAPTER LIX.
When Celsus here or elsewhere finds himself unable to dis- pute the truth of what we say, but avers that the same things were said by the Greeks, our answer is, that if the doctrine be sound, and the effect of it good, whether it was made known to the Greeks by Plato or any of the wise men of Greece, or whether it was delivered to the Jews by Moses or any of the prophets, or whether it was given to the Christians in the recorded teaching of Jesus Christ, or in the instructions of His apostles, that does not affect the value of the truth communicated. It is no objection to the principles of Jews or Christians, that the same things were also said by the Greeks, especially if it be proved that the writings of the Jews are older than those of the Greeks. And further, we are not to imagine that a truth adorned with the graces of Grecian speech is necessarily better than the same when expressed in the more humble and unpre- tending language used by Jews and Christians, although indeed the language of the Jews, in which the prophets wrote the books which have come down to us, has a grace of expression peculiar to the genius of the Hebrew tongue. And even if we were required to show that the same doctrines have been better expressed among the Jewish prophets or in Christian writings, however paradoxical it may seem, we are prepared to prove this by an illustration taken from different kinds of food, and from the different modes of preparing them. Suppose that a kind of food which is wholesome and nutritious has been prepared and seasoned in such a way as to be fit, not for the simple tastes of peasants and poor labourers, but for those only who are rich and dainty in their tastes. Suppose, again, that that same food is prepared not to suit the tastes of the more delicate, but for the peasants, the poor labourers, and the com- mon people generally, in short, so that myriads of persons might eat of it. Now if, according to the supposition, the food prepared in the one way promotes the health of those only who are styled the better classes, while none of the others could taste it, whereas when prepared in the other way it promoted Book νι. ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS.. 481 the health of great multitudes of men, which shall we esteem as most contributing to the public welfare,—those who prepare food for persons of mark, or those who prepare it for the mul- titudes?—taking for granted that in both cases the food is equally wholesome and nourishing; while it is evident that the welfare of mankind and the common good are promoted better by that physician who attends to the health of the many, than by one who confines his attention to a few.
CHAPTER LX.
Now, after understanding this illustration, we have to apply it to the qualities of spiritual food with which the rational part of man is nourished. See, then, if Plato and the wise men among the Greeks, in the beautiful things they say, are not like those physicians who confine their attentions to what are called the better classes of society, and despise the multitude; whereas the prophets among the Jews, and the disciples of Jesus, who despise mere elegances of style, and what is called in Scripture * the wisdom of men," * the wisdom according to the flesh," which delights in what is obscure, resemble those who study to provide the most wholesome food for the largest number of persons. For this purpose they adapt their lan- guage and style to the capacities of the common people, and avoid whatever would seem foreign to them, lest by the intro- duction of strange forms of expression they should produce a distaste for their teaching. Indeed, if the true use of spiritual food, to keep up the figure, is to produce in him who partakes of it the virtues of patience and gentleness, must that discourse not be better prepared when it produces patience and gentleness in multitudes, or makes them grow in these virtues, than that which confines its effects to a select few, supposing that it does really make them gentle and patient? If a Greek wished by wholesome instruction to benefit people who understood only Egyptian or Syriac, the first thing that he would do would be to learn their language; and he would rather pass for a bar- barian among the Greeks, by speaking as the Egyptians or Syrians, in order to be useful to them, than always remain Greek, and be without the means of helping them. In the same way the divine nature, having the purpose of instructing ORIG.—VOL. II. 2H 482 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book vm.
not only those who are reputed to be learned in the literature of Greece, but also the rest of mankind, accommodated itself to the capacities of the simple multitudes whom it addressed. It seeks to win the attention of the more ignorant by the use of language which is familiar to them, so thst they may easily be induced, after their first introduction, to strive after an acquaintance with the deeper truths which lie hidden in Scrip- ture. For even the ordinary reader of Scripture may see that it contains many things which are too deep to be apprehended at first; but these are understood by such as devote themselves to a careful study of the divine word, and they become plain to them in proportion to the pains and zeal which they expend upon its investigation.
CHAPTER LXI.
CHAPTER LXI.
From these remarks it is evident, that when Jesus said * coarsely,” as Celsus terms it, * To him who shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn the other also; and if any man be minded to sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,"! He expressed Himself in such a way as to make the precept have more practical effect than the words of Plato in the Crito; for the latter is so far from being intel- ligible to ordinary persons, that even those have a difficulty in understanding him, who have been brought up in the schools of learning, and have been initiated into the famous philosophy of Greece. It may also be observed, that the precept enjoining patience under injuries is in no way corrupted or degraded by the plain and simple language which our Lord employs, but that in this, as in other cases, it is a mere calumny against our religion which he utters when he says: “ But let this suffice as one example of the way in which this and other truths have been borrowed and corrupted. Any one who wishes can easily by searching find more of them.”
CHAPTER LXII.
Let us now see what follows. * Let us pass on," says he, “to another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, Boog vu. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 488 the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most bar- barous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: *I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.' Heraclitus also says in one place: *Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are, And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception allimages. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings conse- crated to the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons."
CHAPTER LXIII.
To this our answer is, that if the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres, who according to Celsus have no god, if those other most barbarous and impious nations in the world, and if the Persians even cannot bear the sight of temples, altars, and images, it does not follow because we cannot suffer them any more than they, that the grounds on which we object 484 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boo vit.